From skelkins at attbi.com Fri Mar 1 01:25:18 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 01:25:18 -0000 Subject: The Big Bangers and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35902 Cindy wrote: > OK. So under my timeline, Neville is born sometime in 1980. Let's > pick the middle of 1980. That makes him a proper toddler when the > Potters are killed because he is 16 months old or so. Weeeellll... > So if the torture happens ::Cindy pauses to think of a torture date > that will give the greatest possible Bang:: on Christmas day 1981, > Neville is 18 months old, and still a toddler. Ooooh. You almost got me there, with that Christmas Day thing. I imagined a decorated tree crashing to the ground, gaily wrapped parcels trodden underfoot...it was all good. Very Bangy, and my featherboas liked it as well. But then you offered me this: > Can you give me June 1982 as the latest date for the torture? Can > we have the Lestranges caught quickly, so that it is more likely > that Neville's evidence caused their capture? Can Neville be just > turning two when the torture happens? Can we have Mrs. Lestrange > burst through the door as Neville is blowing out his birthday > candles or something? Okay. Tell you what I'm gonna do, since you're being so accomodating here. We'll push Neville's birthday back to the very late winter of 1980, the Event can occur in 1982, and it can be Neville's second birthday. Okay? That way, I don't have to swallow down any more of that Everything-Happens-In-1981 that annoys me so much, you can still have things happening reasonably quickly, the Lestranges can have been reasonably swift-to-take-action, Neville can be unquestionably a toddler (I like to think that he was just entering that horrid "NO!" stage at the time), and we can still have gaily-wrapped parcels trodden underfoot. Also, that way we can declare Neville to be a Pisces. This is actually strongly suggested by canon as JKR, in spite of her apparent distaste for divination, nonetheless seems to enjoy giving her characters apt sun signs (Hermione the Virgo, Harry the Leo, Ron the Taurus, and so forth). Also, this would explain why we never hear a word about Neville's birthday in canon. He's never told anyone when it is, see, 'cause Neville just hates his birthday. It brings back bad memories. > Now that Kimberly and her Faith, *they're* definitely squeamish. > Something needs to be done about them, don't ya think? Faith lacks Edge. She definitely lacks Edge. But I'm afraid that she *does* have the author on her side, so she probably outranks us. > I'm not too sure about ToadKeeper. Don't tell Judy or anything, > but she stung me pretty good with her assault on ToadKeeper. 'Stung' you? She sank Toadkeeper straight to a watery grave, actually, but ssssshhh. We'll keep that our little secret, shall we? > I'm just putting on a brave face at this point. I'd *love* for you > to come up with something for this Neville/Trevor issue so that I > could scuttle ToadKeeper, 'cause it is seriously taking on water. Mmmmmm. Well, I was working up a Neville backstory, but now I realize that it has no Trevor Oh, no! Note to self: revamp backstory to include Trevor. Preferably with Big Banginess. I'll, uh...I'll be getting back to you on that. > Hmmm. If Reverse-Memory-Charm Neville is repeatedly re-living his > parents' torture, doesn't it, uh, help, if he actually saw it? Two options here: 1) He could see little bits and pieces of what was going on through a crack in the closet door, just like the kids on all of those made for TV movies. 2) He couldn't see a thing. It was pitch black. All he could do was *hear* what was going on -- which might be a whole lot worse, really. > How about if the torture happens right there in front of Neville > (with toddler Neville wearing his pointy birthday hat and all), but > someone tells Mrs. Lestrange to spare Neville? You still haven't sold me on the entire group of DEs being willing to spare Neville. I do like my DEs grey, it is true, but I also like them vile. If they had known the kid was there, then they would have brutalized him. How about option (3): Neville was sitting right there at the table, birthday cake in front of him and wearing his pointy hat and all, but hidden under the Invisibility Cloak that Frank had hastily thrown over the kid when the DEs first burst through the door? Moody had an Invisibility Cloak, so Frank might have had one as well? Seems like something that an Auror might have had lying around the house. I don't like option (3) though. It's hard to reconcile with my Life Debt To Barty Crouch theory. Also, if we stick to Crouch Lying To The Others About Neville In the Closet, then we can add to our supposition that young Crouch, fearing that the kid might start snivelling or screaming or otherwise giving the game away, *also* smacked him with a full Body-Bind, to keep him quiet. In this way we could account for Neville's expression of utter and complete horror when Hermione does the exact same thing to him in SS/PS, as well as for his appearance -- "white with shock" -- when he wins the House Cup for Gryffindor and gets praise and hugs from all of his classmates at the end of the novel. Harry's dead wrong about what's happening with Neville there. He's not shocked and pleased to be receiving all that unaccustomed praise. He's shocked and *appalled* that he is actually being stroked for having been victimized in this particular way -- yet *again!* > As an aside, I am having some trouble closing the loop on Reverse- > Memory-Charm Neville, and now that Elkins is back on board, maybe > she can help. Why *is* Neville's memory so bad, exactly? Was his > memory actually damaged by the charm? That's possible, I guess. Hmmm. Well, how's this? The Reverse Memory thing wasn't actually a charm at all. It was a *potion.* A new and experimental potion, in fact, which had just recently been invented by that young hotshot of Dumbledore's -- Severus Snape. The Memory Retrieval Potion was still in the testing stage when Crouch authorized its use on young Neville. It hadn't actually been cleared for use on human subjects yet. But did Crouch care? Are you kidding? He wanted this case wrapped up, and fast. The reason that the Memory Retrieval Potion has never been mentioned in canon, of course, is that as it turned out, it had some... unfortunate side-effects. The initial tests on the lab rabbits and such had all gone fine, but apparently when used on human subjects you start running into problems. Problems like permanent memory damage. Problems like suppression of natural magical talent. Big Problems. Because of these problems, the substance was in the end never cleared by the Ministry for use at all, and everyone would really much rather it just be forgotten about altogether. And that's the real reason why Snape's so cranky about Neville's incompetence in his potions class, you see. That's *guilt,* is what that is. Guilt, and anger that he was made to look like such an incompetent by that blithering moron Crouch, who simply *would* not listen to him when he had tried to explain that his tests had not yet been completed, and that he could not therefore make any promises at all that his new potion would not, in fact, turn the boy's brain to mush. It's also why Dumbledore's asking him to brew up that Wolfsbane Potion for Lupin was such a very big deal to Snape, and why he became so very irritable when Lupin seemed to be hesitating before gulping it down. And why it was really quite kind of Dumbledore to insist on using Snape's "strongest" veritaserum on Crouch at the end of GoF. That was a gesture of trust, that was. And I'm sure that Severus appreciated it. -- Elkins From devin.smither at yale.edu Fri Mar 1 02:05:18 2002 From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 02:05:18 -0000 Subject: FILK: Hell's Spell Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35903 Based on the lyrics of AC/DC's "Hells Bells", a song that can definitely do Voldemort-style evil justice, plus the voice of AC/DC's Brian Johnson is pretty high (though maybe not cold) anyway. Scene: The dark and stormy (for the purpose of this filk) night of Halloween, 1981(?). Voldemort is heading for Godric's Hollow. (*moody, slowly building opening as each instrument takes its place in the song, when they all come together, Voldemort begins singing) Voldemort: Through the rolling thunder and pouring rain Gonna cause the Potters major pain Wormtail told me the place they'd hide Kid's only one, but he's gonna die Pre-chorus: Oh, won't take no prisoners, might spare one life If Lily don't put up a fight Got this spell to send the Potters to Hell Avada Kedavra, now it's gotcha Chorus: Hell's Spell Oh, Hell's Spell They got me cursin' Hell's Spell Their ending is nigh, Hell's Spell Won't Crucio anyone this time Just the green light for those friends of mine Watch me kill these three fools fighting for the light And then this Halloween brings eternal night Pre-chorus: Oh, won't take no prisoners, might spare her life But the chances of that are slight Ohhhhh, it's the highest Unforgiveable spell Avada Kedavra's gonna swat ya Chorus: Hell's Spell Oh, Hell's Spell Soon they'll be facin' Hell's Spell My body count's high with Hell's Spell (*eruptive, evil guitar solo as Voldemort passes a sign that says Godric's Hollow, now approaching the Potter cottage*) Hell's Spell Voldy's comin' for you Hell's Spell I'm going in now Hell's Spell I see James inside Hell's Spell And now he dies! Hell's Spell I'm heading upstairs Hell's Spell She's waiting right there Hell's Spell Begging, goes down in shock Hell's Spell There's no way to block (*Voldemort is anguished to find there IS a way to block it*) Ow! Ow! Ow! Owwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!! (*Untimely ripped from his body, Voldemort gets out one last scream: Hell's Spell!!!!!!!!!! *and then, in his incorporeal form, runs(?) madly away*) ---------------------------------------------- Kudos to Marina for the best FILK ever ("I am the very model"--I LOVE Gilbert and Sullivan). Night all. Devin From moongirlk at yahoo.com Fri Mar 1 03:16:50 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 03:16:50 -0000 Subject: The Big Bangers and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35904 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > I think Faith's version of Neville's backstory, while Faithful, is a > great deal less Bangy than Harry's. I mean, Harry's backstory is a > Cherry Bomb -- big, bad, unpredictable and dangerous. Neville's > backstory is just a sparkler -- initially appealling, kind of > pleasant to hold, but it won't get anyone's attention really, and it > eventually kind of fizzles out -- the kind of thing a small child > can manage on her own. :-) Wow. I think I'm completely outclassed here. When I think of Neville's backstory I get all misty-eyed and impressed. To me it's tragic and terrifying and... something else that starts with a T. To a Big Banger, it's a sparkler. They don't even *make* noise. Wow. I bow to your Bang. > This suggests to me that JKR is . . . a closeted Banger. I think you're probably right. I mean, the whole series is *definitely* Bangy. I guess that's why the flaming moderate in my soul can't handle too terribly much *extra* Bang. I may like Edge, but I can't bear a tear-jerker (Sissy Spacek frightens me). Maybe there are only a > few to go around. Hagrid is certainly going to get one, what with > all the hints about Giants in GoF. Harry already has one. Maybe > there's no room for Neville to have an elaborate Bangy backstory. > > Sheez, I hope that isn't true. If JKR tossed in that bit in GoF > about the fate of Neville's parents just to wind me up, and if she > doesn't go somewhere with it, well . . . she would never do such a > thing to me. > > Would she? Don't you worry - even Faith is sure JKR's *going* somewhere interesting and exciting and maybe even Bangy with Neville. I don't know about her, but I even hope it *is* somewhat Bangy (as long as Sissy Spacek doesn't play his institutionalized mother - then someone's going to have to hold me). It's just that with all we already have about his past, I have to go with Faith in believing there's no real point in making it worse than it already was. > Cindy (who will *never* stop laughing if any of our insane > backstories turns out to be true) So then, did you *like* my insane backstory? Because I did my best to put in all the Bangs and angst I could. It made me a little queasy, but I did it for your entertainment. You didn't like my scenario on the ambush being Snape's idea, so I'm feeling a little vulnerable now... kimberly who saw some new tv pilot tonight, and wishes some of the HP bashers would spend their time worrying about trashy stuff on tv instead of endearing books about child heroes fighting the forces of evil. From jmmears at prodigy.net Fri Mar 1 03:22:09 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 03:22:09 -0000 Subject: Was Percy! now Percy/Molly/Hermione In-Reply-To: <3C7E98FF.6090509@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35905 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: . Harry at one point thinks that Percy has puffed > himself up in a way that reminds Harry rather forcefully of Molly. Well, she IS his mother. Kids often pick up mannerisms from one parent or the other without otherwise resembling them personality- wise, although I do think they have some traits im common. My impression of Molly leads me to believe that she was quite the pistol in her day and not really much like Percy. Remember her fond recollection of her "nighttime stroll" with Arthur ? Penny wrote: I do > dislike the way she interacts with her children in some ways. With > Bill, she seems fond but a bit meddlesome; with Charlie ... hmmm, no > real opinion here; with Percy, she is fond & doting to the point of > fairly obvious favoritism; with the Twins, she is definitely bossy, > interfering & unappreciative of their strengths & ambitions; with Ron, > she seems to be largely uninvolved or "absent" (she pays *far* more > attention to Harry than to Ron, and someone wrote a really nice analysis > some point back about how Molly's favoring Harry over her own son Ron > might cause problems in the Harry/Ron relationship as well as the > Molly/Ron relationship before all is said & done); and finally, with > Ginny, I see her as smothering & over-protective. > That's funny because I really admire Molly as a mother. I'd even go so far as to describe her as Uber-Mom. With that many kids (particularly those twins) I'd say she does a great job of ruling the roost. After all, Arthur is sweet but quite ineffective at managing them and I would suspect that Molly realized early in their parenting career that if anyone was going to save them from utter chaos, it was going to have to be her. It's pretty common in large families (esp. ones with several boys) for one parent or the other to have to take the harder line to have the family function at all. I really don't agree that Molly favors Harry over Ron either; she merely has a soft spot for any obviously neglected child and I haven't caught so much of a whiff of Ron's resenting her attentions to Harry. As for her "interfering" with the twins, well somebody had better interfere with them! Can you imagine having to bring those two up, what with burning holes in their little brother's tongue, and turning his bear into a giant spider? I don't *see* any evidence that her mothering has cramped their style. The thing that strikes me about Percy is that he is so much a male version of Hermione. If she hadn't been developed so much as a character, she would probably be his twin. Both are heavily invested in overachievement and needing loads of approval and validation from authority figures. Both of them tend to be overbearing when interacting with others and both of them tend to be, well, humor-impaired. JKR even states in GoF that Hermione usually gets along with Percy much better than the others. Of course, because Hermione is one of the main characters we know so much more about her, but if Percy were more fully developed I think that we would find that there's much more to him than the "Bighead boy". Let's face it, if Hermione hadn't been befriended by Ron and Harry, she'd be Percy in spades. I'm really looking forward to learning more about Percy, but then I'm happy with any further Weasley character development Jo Serenadust, MAJOR Weasley fan From tanie_05 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 1 03:58:35 2002 From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 03:58:35 -0000 Subject: A Percy moment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35906 David wrote: > > so, I *think* nobody caught this, one of my favourite moments in the > entire canon. From memory, I'm afraid. > > At the Yule ball, Ron has just been exceptionally rude to Krum, and Krum > walks off, looking for Hermione. > > Percy bustles over, and says something like: 'Made friends with > Viktor Krum, Ron?', rubbing his hands together, 'Excellent, > excellent - that's what it's all about, international magical co- > operation.' > > It's very funny in its own right, but I like it particularly because > if Ron had been entering into the spirit of the thing, it would have > been a positive moment for him, too. As it is, Percy's innocent > enthusiasm is just what Ron needs, if he is capable of receiving it. Funny. Maybe it was just me, but I figured that Percy was being sarcastic for a moment. He just saw his brother being very hostile towards someone he "admired", when all before he would have been excited to be near the guy. I find it funny & think this is a good moment for Percy. It shows he has a slimmer of a sense of humor, not exactly Fred & George style, but still a sense nonetheless. -Kyrstyne(who thinks there's more to Percy than what we're reading now) From pennylin at swbell.net Fri Mar 1 04:08:06 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:08:06 -0600 Subject: Molly with the Twins & some more Percy References: Message-ID: <3C7EFEA6.2080300@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 35907 Hi again -- I said, of Molly's relationship with the Twins: > > with the Twins, she is definitely bossy, > > interfering & unappreciative of their strengths & ambitions; Eileen said: > > Yeah, wanting hurt people (Dudley), frighten the emotionally troubled > (Ginny), torment their siblings (Percy), risk all their money on the > Quidditch cup, flunk their exams, and otherwise cavort in > unrestricted illegality. > > I like the twins, just as Percy does in his heart of heart, but I > think Molly's firm stand is necessary with those two, and even they > know it. Jo Serenadust added: > As for her "interfering" with the twins, well somebody > had better interfere with them! Can you imagine having to bring > those two up, what with burning holes in their little brother's > tongue, and turning his bear into a giant spider? I don't *see* any > evidence that her mothering has cramped their style. So, it's okay with you two if she just chooses the best career for the Twins, regardless of what they might prefer? They are pretty obviously not cut out for the drone of govt work in the MoM, and they pretty definitely have started taking steps to avoid that situation. Molly, OTOH, has taken an active stance to *interfere* with their ambitions during the summer prior to their final year in school. She also says later something to the effect of "I guess they'll just not amount to anything." Yeah, they'll not amount to anything -- they'll just be those wildly successful entrepreneurs they *could* be if she'd keep her nose out of their career-planning. I guess I just have reasonably strong feelings about letting your kids be who *they* want to be, not who *you* want them to be. Molly may think the MOM is the only way to go career-wise (though why she'd think so since neither Bill nor Charlie chose that route is a mystery), but the Twins have other ideas & they seemed reasonably mature in their approach (drawing up order forms & creating a business plan & thinking about financing). That's why I think her mothering style with respect to the Twins is not so great. I'm not saying she should never have prevented them from doing *dangerous* things. I just think she fails to let them be the people they'd like to be. Possibly ditto with Ron & Ginny. Eileen again, with tantalizing information: > Exactly. Percy is even ahead of the Lestranges in my book. And JKR > has promised that Percy's particular problem will be adressed in Book > V. I've not heard *this* before. You always hear this business about Ginny playing a "bigger" role in Book V (and as I always sarcastically note: yeah, bigger than her role in PoA or GoF? What would *that* take?). I've never heard anything about Percy though -- very cool. Can you provide a cite? > The other problem with Ron as expert is that he is so obviously wrong > about Percy. Percy will have a loyalty crisis, but it will be a > loyalty crisis because he does love his family. He's actually the > only Weasley to ever show pride in Ron. (Not that I think Ron is > completely unappreciated by his family.) I think he's wrong about Percy too, and Hermione points this up to Ron. :--) Jo Serenadust said: > Kids often pick up mannerisms from one > parent or the other without otherwise resembling them personality- > wise, although I do think they have some traits im common. My > impression of Molly leads me to believe that she was quite the > pistol in her day and not really much like Percy. Remember her fond > recollection of her "nighttime stroll" with Arthur ? Yeah, and poor Percy is so straight-laced, he'd never do anything like that. :::whispers:"Remember what Ginny caught Percy doing with Penelope in CoS?":::: Penny From huntleyl at mssm.org Fri Mar 1 04:15:43 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:15:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Was Percy! now Percy/Molly/Hermione References: Message-ID: <000d01c1c0d7$c18b0660$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 35908 Penny wrote: I do > dislike the way she interacts with her children in some ways. With > Bill, she seems fond but a bit meddlesome; with Charlie ... hmmm, no > real opinion here; with Percy, she is fond & doting to the point of > fairly obvious favoritism; with the Twins, she is definitely bossy, > interfering & unappreciative of their strengths & ambitions; with Ron, > she seems to be largely uninvolved or "absent" (she pays *far* more > attention to Harry than to Ron, and someone wrote a really nice analysis > some point back about how Molly's favoring Harry over her own son Ron > might cause problems in the Harry/Ron relationship as well as the > Molly/Ron relationship before all is said & done); and finally, with > Ginny, I see her as smothering & over-protective. > ^_~ I happen to love Molly. She and Arthur remind me very much of my own parents (in a fictional, idealized way of course) complete with the screaming on her part and Arthur's tendency to come off as bumbling, a little eccentric, and quite harmless -- not really a father at all...My mother is always saying (sometimes jokingly, sometimes very angrily) that dad is just her third child. Just like my father, Arthur is pretty immature about everything *except* his work, and his reaction to Molly's anger in CoS when the Weasley boys had brought Harry back in the car (not to mention when that ton tongue toffee incident) was so familiar it gave me the chills -- but it also made me laugh. Of course, in RL, when a mother gets angry like that, it is NO FUN for the child at all. However, I still think Molly is doing very well. Think about it: she has SEVEN kids. Holy toledo. And as far as keeping them in line, Arthur is really no help. While I sympathized with Fred and George when she was yelling at them about the ton tongue toffee incident, I still understand her exasperation with them. Sometimes, it seems, the only way to get through to kids is to raise the decibel several levels. As far as I am concerned, she is a phenomenal mom. I mean, she's got the body type and everything -- don't you just want to curl up on her lap and listen to bedtime stories? ^_~ Furthermore, I don't think she favors Harry to Ron. Ron would have been very quick to pick up on this and we have yet to see him upset because his mom is paying attention to Harry. On to another topic, I still don't see the problem people see with Hermione in her first year. Honestly, she wasn't all *that* bad, was she? I mean, she was a bit chattery before the Sorting and the first time they went to "broom lessons" -- but I expect that was nerves. And she *did* lie for Ron and Harry after the troll incident. *And* she fully devoted her efforts to helping Harry and Ron solve the mystery about the Philosopher's Stone as soon as she realized it was important, not just the boys fooling around. Yes, perhaps before the troll incident she came off a little annoying, but once she, Harry, and Ron became friends, she has always been fiercely loyal to the both of them, which is more than I can say for Ron. Furthermore, she has always been courageous enough to do what she knows is right, *no matter what* anyone else says or thinks. Take the firebolt incident, for example. She *knew* Harry and Ron would shun her for telling Mrs. McGonagall about it, but she did it anyway because she would rather have Harry hate her than have Harry blasted to bits by a jinxed broom. Not many kids her age would have had the nerve to that. Allot of people can't understand why Hermione is a Gryffindor, I mean -- she's quite the intellectual -- she should be in Ravenclaw, right? However, I believe that Hermione is incredibly gifted in the greatest and hardest kind of courage it is possible to have, being a girl at her age -- the courage to withstand and defy peer pressure. mm..well g'bye. laura (who is not a Weasley fan at all, but generally doesn't mind the lot of them) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tanie_05 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 1 04:28:34 2002 From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 04:28:34 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35909 Hi! How are you? :) Beth wrote: > We know that the Dursley's have a cover story for Harry's absences to > Hogwarts, but what do you think Hermione's parents tell people. To be quite honest, I just had the impression they told others the truth. They seem to be proud of their daughter, so why hide it? But I doubt people believe them. > And > why aren't parents or other relatives allowed to visit (that we've > seen), other than for unusual events like the Tri-wizard Tournament? I've always wondered that. Why can't parents watch their kids play Quidditch matches or something? Hmmmmm....that kinda irks me. Oh well, gotta move on. :) > If you were Hermione's parents, wouldn't you have liked to have seen > your daughter get rescued? The only time we've seen her parents was > at Kings' Cross, looking rather nervous, IIRC. What exactly were they > nervous about? They've never been around other witches & wizards. (BTW, we saw them at Diagon Alley. IDK about Kings' Cross. Maybe it was in PS/SS, IRDK. Oh well, never mind. I'm not sure myself. [rolls her eyes at herself]) They're Muggles who just so happen to have a magical child, the only one in their family. This is a strange place with all these shops they've never been to or heard of, & they know no one there. Really, if I were them, I'd be nervous too. -Kyrstyne(who is going to bed now) From jmmears at prodigy.net Fri Mar 1 05:20:40 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 05:20:40 -0000 Subject: Was Percy! now Percy/Molly/Hermione In-Reply-To: <000d01c1c0d7$c18b0660$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35910 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" wrote: Sometimes, it seems, the only way to get through to kids is to raise the decibel several levels. As far as I am concerned, she is a phenomenal mom. I mean, she's got the body type and everything -- don't you just want to curl up on her lap and listen to bedtime stories? ^_~ > Yep, Molly knows that some kids really need the 2 by 4 between the eyes just to get their attention, but she's really a big softy when the chips are down. > On to another topic, I still don't see the problem people see with Hermione in her first year. Honestly, she wasn't all *that* bad, was she? I mean, she was a bit chattery before the Sorting and the first time they went to "broom lessons" -- but I expect that was nerves. And she *did* lie for Ron and Harry after the troll incident. *And* she fully devoted her efforts to helping Harry and Ron solve the mystery about the Philosopher's Stone as soon as she realized it was important, not just the boys fooling around. Yes, perhaps before the troll incident she came off a little annoying, but once she, Harry, and Ron became friends, she has always been fiercely loyal to the both of them, which is more than I can say for Ron. Gee Laura, you were doing so well with Molly..... I had just gotten all comfy in her lap, ready for my bedtime story and, well, now I'm all upset and bothered. Firstly, have you ever actually had to deal with anyone like Hermione in the first year? I mean, she's constantly butting in, completely uninvited, on Ron and Harry. She evesdrops on their conversation with Malfoy concerning the midnight duel. I was ready to strangle her at that point. It doesn't matter that she was right about the duel. In fact, that makes her even more annoying. As for her great loyalty to Ron, she sure showed that during the whole Crookshanks/Scabbers conflict in PoA. He repeatedly asks her to keep the cat away from his already ailing pet, and she completely ignores his feelings, although I can't see why anyone would find his request to be unreasonable at all. Her insensitivity to others can be breathtaking at times. Remember her response to the death of Lavenders rabbit? She consistantly favors being right over being kind. I really don't dislike Hermione on the whole, but I don't really see her as a paragon of all virture either. She has many fine qualities, to be sure, but her faults are no less significant than Rons. It's just that IMO, she gets a pass on them because she's so smart. Jo Serenadust, fan of all Weasleys and ESPECIALLY Ron > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmmears at prodigy.net Fri Mar 1 05:55:35 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 05:55:35 -0000 Subject: Molly with the Twins & some more Percy In-Reply-To: <3C7EFEA6.2080300@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35911 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., I wrote: > > > As for her "interfering" with the twins, well somebody > > had better interfere with them! Can you imagine having to bring > > those two up, what with burning holes in their little brother's > > tongue, and turning his bear into a giant spider? I don't *see* any > > evidence that her mothering has cramped their style. Penny replied: > So, it's okay with you two if she just chooses the best career for the > Twins, regardless of what they might prefer? Do you really think that there's the slightest chance of the twins allowing their *mother* choose their careers? She's just being a typical worrywart mom here, and she IMO knows better than anyone that they will do as they darn well please once they're out of Hogwarts. Just wait and see. Penny again: > Molly, OTOH, has taken an active stance to *interfere* with their > ambitions during the summer prior to their final year in school. She > also says later something to the effect of "I guess they'll just not > amount to anything." Yeah, they'll not amount to anything -- they'll > just be those wildly successful entrepreneurs they *could* be if she'd > keep her nose out of their career-planning. I guess I just have > reasonably strong feelings about letting your kids be who *they* want to > be, not who *you* want them to be. Molly may think the MOM is the only > way to go career-wise (though why she'd think so since neither Bill nor > Charlie chose that route is a mystery), but the Twins have other ideas & > they seemed reasonably mature in their approach (drawing up order forms > & creating a business plan & thinking about financing). That's why I > think her mothering style with respect to the Twins is not so great. > I'm not saying she should never have prevented them from doing > *dangerous* things. I just think she fails to let them be the people > they'd like to be. Possibly ditto with Ron & Ginny. Again, do you really think that the twins are not exactly the people they'd like to be? Their business plans may show some maturity, but their "inventions" are pretty hair-raising and their tendency to try them out on unwitting victims, ie Dudley & Neville, could border on criminal (although I did enjoy Dudley and the ton-tongue toffee ). Molly probably fears they may land themselves in Azkaban, if she can't keep them in check, and obviously Arthur isn't much help. For Molly, going into the MoM is probably like the average muggle mother wanting a "safe" career (like law, or medicine) for her sons, instead of persuing something like, say, stand-up comedy. She's spent years yanking them back from the brink of disaster, and is having some trouble dropping the habit. Sorry, but I still can't see that they aren't doing just fine at being themselves, and will continue to pursure their ambitions (with Harry's financing). Anyway, IIRC Ron says at the end of GoF, that he doesn't think their mum will be so keen on their going into the MoM now that she's seen what's coming. > > Jo Serenadust said: > > > Kids often pick up mannerisms from one > > parent or the other without otherwise resembling them personality- > > wise, although I do think they have some traits im common. My > > impression of Molly leads me to believe that she was quite the > > pistol in her day and not really much like Percy. Remember her fond > > recollection of her "nighttime stroll" with Arthur ? Penny once more: > Yeah, and poor Percy is so straight-laced, he'd never do anything like > that. :::whispers:"Remember what Ginny caught Percy doing with Penelope > in CoS?":::: Yep, I did think of that, but a little daytime kissing in a classroom pales in comparison with being out on the grounds with Arthur until FOUR in the morning (Molly, you hussy!). Anyway, the classroom smooching was probably Penelope's idea (You know how take- charge girls named Penny tend to be . Jo Serenadust, breaking her all-time 24 hour posting record From elfundeb at aol.com Fri Mar 1 06:04:06 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 06:04:06 -0000 Subject: Twins Challenge (WAS: Percy challenge) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35912 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "moongirlk" wrote: > I haven't got the books with me at the moment, and can't be as > thorough as I'd like, so these are just top-of-the-head things. > > 1 - Offering to help Harry with his trunk upon their first meeting and > 2 - doing same on other occasions. > 3 - Making Harry feel welcome when he was sorted into Gryffindor (Debbie asks: I'm not sure what you mean here; do you mean "We got Potter?" That sounds like gloating over the fact that their house had nabbed The Boy Who Lived) and > when he was added to the Quidditch team with no experience. > 4 - Coming to Harry's rescue in the Flying Ford Anglia when he's been > locked in his room. > 5 - Along with Ron, explaining a lot of wizard world stuff to Harry > and Hermione. > 6 - Better than Ron, never once expressing any kind of prejudice > against those who are different. > 7 - trying to cheer up Ginny and Harry during CoS (maybe not > effective in Ginny's case, but nice, nonetheless). > 8 - insisting that Percy spend Christmas with the family > > I don't have a lot of time at the moment, so I'll quit here, but if I > get a chance I'll flip through the books soon to refresh my memory > and post more. But let me add my favorite purely speculative one: > 9 - Helping Ginny come up with clever rhymes for Harry's Valentine. > > kimberly > always ready with a good word about a Weasley After posting this question I concluded that I had been unfair in lumping Fred and George together. As I see it, Fred is the ringleader and George the follower in all of their pranks. George, OTOH, is the thoughtful one, who offers to help, offers thanks, etc. And your list seems to bear that out, to the extent that I've checked it. George offers to carry Harry's trunk, then gets Fred to help him. George welcomes Harry to the Quidditch team, while Fred comments on their improved chances of winning the Quidditch cup. George, not Fred, insists that Percy spend Christmas with the family. There are countless others -- George tried to refuse Harry's offer of the Triwizard winnings, and thanked him. George, not Fred, was worried about the idea of blackmailing Ludo Bagman. But I don't remember a single positive instance instigated by Fred. While Nice Twin vs. Evil Twin seems too melodramatic, I do think, in the end, Fred will prove the most vulnerable of the Weasleys, as I'm not convinced he fully shares in the bedrock Weasley loyalty. (Actually, I've said this before, in a post on Cracking.) So I'd like to revise the challenge to find positive Fred moments that might rehabilitate the reputation Fred has created in my mind. Debbie, forgiving George for his role in all the pranks From elfundeb at aol.com Fri Mar 1 07:50:15 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 07:50:15 -0000 Subject: Molly, Harry & Ron (WAS: Percy!) In-Reply-To: <3C7E98FF.6090509@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35913 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: > If > asked to choose absolutely, do I *like* Molly or *dislike* Molly, I'd > probably have to say that I like her overall. This is mainly because of > her interactions with Harry and how *he* feels about her though. I do > dislike the way she interacts with her children in some ways. With > Bill, she seems fond but a bit meddlesome; with Charlie ... hmmm, no > real opinion here; with Percy, she is fond & doting to the point of > fairly obvious favoritism; with the Twins, she is definitely bossy, > interfering & unappreciative of their strengths & ambitions; with Ron, > she seems to be largely uninvolved or "absent" (she pays *far* more > attention to Harry than to Ron, and someone wrote a really nice analysis > some point back about how Molly's favoring Harry over her own son Ron > might cause problems in the Harry/Ron relationship as well as the > Molly/Ron relationship before all is said & done); I've been meaning to write a post about Molly for awhile now to make these same points about her interactions with Harry in comparison to Ron and I went through the books cataloging each interaction with Molly. The result (I apologize in advance if this was in the post Penny mentions) was that over the 4 books we see significantly more interaction between Harry and Molly than with Molly and Ron (the count was approximately 15 to 10) and every Harry-Molly interaction is positive. That in itself isn't surprising, perhaps, since the books are written from Harry's POV, and Harry's not a member of the family but a neglected orphan, so she treats him as an honored guest. I suspect Ron has not appeared concerned about Molly's favoring Harry because he is their guest; surely he'd be angry if his mother started yelling at his friend like she yells at her own sons. But Harry's guest status starts changing toward the end of GoF, as Molly and Bill pointedly come to the Third Task as Harry's "family" and spend all day with Harry (Ron had an exam in the morning, but there is no mention of an afternoon exam, yet Molly spent the afternoon with Harry instead of any of her Hogwarts children). Molly's interactions with Ron, on the other hand, show an opposite trend throughout the books. She acts very motherly in PS/SS on the platform (and in each subsequent book, accounting for 4 of their 10 interactions) but virtually every other interaction between Molly and Ron is some sort of criticism. Mostly, however, he seems to be ignored, even though he's often present when Molly is focusing her attention on someone else -- usually Harry or the twins. In fact, in GoF, aside from the usual platform scene, despite a reasonable amount of "screen time" together, they interact only twice: first, the argument over the dress robes (has Molly really not figured out that Ron hates maroon?), and a very brief conversation at lunch on the day of the Third Task, where Ron says he made up a couple of goblin names, whereupon Molly looked stern, then spent the afternoon with Harry and Bill. I keep thinking that there must be some positive interaction between them that we don't see, but I sense that in the Weasley family, the squeaky wheel gets the oil, with the result that Percy draws attention to himself by his accomplishments, the twins draw (negative) attention to themselves through their mischief, and Ginny is a natural attention getter as the youngest and only girl. Ron is lost in the chaos. > >Penny: I *don't* think Molly is written 100% positively; at least, my reactions > to her have not always been positive. I've been thinking about different characters' "fatal flaws," i.e. the character traits that could create serious problems in the war against Voldemort. In my view, one of Molly's worst faults is her apparent attraction to famous wizards. She was a Lockhart groupie, is implied to imbibe celebrity gossip in Witch Weekly (which seems a cross between People magazine and the National Enquirer), and seems to treat Harry with a similar level of adoration. Nothing could be worse for Ron's ability to overcome his insecurities, now that she's drawn Harry so much closer into the family fold, than for her to continue to ignore Ron while treating Harry like the honored guest who is worthy of attention because of who he is rather than his accomplishments. While I do not believe in my heart of hearts that Ron will "go bad" Molly's treatment of Harry could certainly drive a wedge between them that might cause Harry to lack critical support when he needs it. > please do *not* write back with > "Where do I find that quiz that Penny mentioned" > I couldn't find the quiz, but I'm not going to ask . . . . Debbie, who worries about Ron all the time but is strangely confident about his future From chiflipgrl at aol.com Fri Mar 1 02:23:55 2002 From: chiflipgrl at aol.com (chiflipgrl at aol.com) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:23:55 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] FILK: "I Am the Very Model of an Anti-Hero Archetype" Message-ID: <195.3074d50.29b0403b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 35914 This is absolutely genius! I love this! This should be recorded... I, too, am putting up copies of this at home and at my "office." (I'm a Student Aide for my theatre teacher/director. I'm sure he won't mind this being posted on his tackboard.) :) *~*~*~* Janice *~*~*~* [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From abced99 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 1 04:47:15 2002 From: abced99 at hotmail.com (abced99420) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 04:47:15 -0000 Subject: Mountains=the "new place" ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35915 > Well, even IF we take for granted SOMEONE's going to die, I don't see > why you assume it's going to be Hagrid. You would need to be more > specific about that. (Of course, I don't like the idea of him dying, > that's obvious.) If GoF is anything to go on, I feel it more likely > that some minor character is going to be the victim, anyway. After > all, Cedric, on second thoughts, seems to have been invented for the > only pupose to get killed off. Anyway, if it was book 7 we're talking > about, it would seem more likely that some of the major characters > are in for it, but definitely not book 5. > However, I fully agree with you that "Giant Land" would be an > interesting place to see. hiya! I'm sorry, I don't have access to any specific JKR quotes right now, but I believe in a interview, she said that in book 5 she will have to incorporate a death that will be very hard to write. Like you, I am a Hagrid fan, and I really hope that it won't be him that dies. However, when listing her favorite characters, JKR consistantly names Harry, Ron, Hermione, Hagrid, and Lupin (in various order). I don't know about the Trio dying in general, but I don't think that any of them will die before book 7 (IMO)--for continuity reasons, more than anything. Between Lupin and Hagrid, however, I personally think that Hagrid has had much more on-screen time than Lupin, and also has a more important place in Harry's heart than Lupin. JKR has given Hagrid a specific role in Book 5, in terms of contacting the giants, which means that he will have to be present somehow. Hagrid's importance and death is only my personal take on the plot of book 5/ Hopefully I'm wrong and Harry's next Big Fan to die will be another Cedric type, like Colin Creevy, or someone similar. I just think that Cedric's death was a way of raising the stakes, so readers will be prepared for a more significant death like Hagrids (which, in turn will raise the stakes again, to prepare us for a death like Hermione or Dumbledore). I think that this post is probably awfully muddled, but I hope I've gotten my point across! cheers, acbed99 (who really should be revising for her lectures right now!) From oppen at cnsinternet.com Fri Mar 1 09:26:29 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 03:26:29 -0600 Subject: Sirius' laughter Message-ID: <01e801c1c103$2be560c0$d4c71bce@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 35916 One explanation for Sirius Black being found laughing like a loon when the Aurors swooped down on him after Peter Pettigrew got away has not, as far as I know, been put forward: A Cheering Charm. Even though, _compared to his three pals who were some of the best in their year,_ Peter Pettigrew is not much of a spell-flinger, a Cheering Charm should be well within his capabilities. Picture this scenario: After Voldemort goes down for the count at Godric's Hollow, Peter Pettigrew _knows_ that Sirius Black knows what had to have happened, even if nobody else does---yet. However, Pettigrew has not spent years hanging around with Sirius entirely in vain, and he knows that Black's the impulsive sort who'll come looking for him instead of going straight to Dumbledore or the Aurors and explaining that he _wasn't_ the Potters' Secret Keeper---either with the aid of Veritaserum or a Penseive. Pettigrew, like Lord Blackadder, comes up with a plan so cunning, it could be Regius Professor of Cunningology at Jordan College in Lyra Belacqua's Oxford. Like so: When Sirius locates him, Pettigrew is ready. The confrontation takes place in front of lots of Muggles, whose well-being Pettigrew, as a Death Eater, is...shall we say? less than heavily concerned with. The second Pettigrew sees Black, he hits Black with a good, solid Cheering Charm, sending him into helpless gales of laughter. Then, he screams, loudly enough for the whole street to hear: "Lily and James, Sirius! How could you?" bursts into false tears, drops his (previously-severed) finger, blasts the street, changes into a rat, and dives down the sewer to join "his filthy little friends." The Aurors sweep in, and take what they see pretty much at face-value. We on this list tend to discount Peter Pettigrew, as a wizard, a plotter, and a Death Eater. Admittedly, Voldemort treats him very badly, and is contemptous of his skills as a wizard. However, Voldemort is easily one of the two most powerful wizards extant, and he may not really realize just how powerful Pettigrew is, compared to the average "Joe Schmoe" wizard. He cringes and whines for his life in the Shrieking Shack...however, he _knows_ these men who want to kill him, and while cringing and whining aren't a wildly good choice, he doesn't have a lot of others. And, to be sure, it _does_ work, since Harry stops his ex-pals from killing him as he deserves, and he escapes, albeit with a life-debt to Harry Potter. He may well cultivate an image of "a powerless, cowering wimp of a wizard" in order to be discounted, the better to pursue his own cunning plans. Were I Voldemort, I'd keep a sharp eye on Pettigrew...he's been willing to betray his friends before, and Voldemort's treatment would drive anybody to betrayal. From tabouli at unite.com.au Fri Mar 1 10:36:43 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 21:36:43 +1100 Subject: Soothing Eloise re ethnocentrism, Chinese wizards Message-ID: <003501c1c10f$93355260$3d0bdccb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 35917 Elkins: > But we should probably watch out for that Captain Tabouli. She can be just *vicious.* And sneaky, too. I don't know how you sleep nights on that ship, Eileen. I really don't.< (The serene, gentle Captain Tabouli is back in the crow's nest, where she reclines peacefully, gazing out over the waves. There is a piccolo in her hand, and from time to time she tootles a perky little tune on it which calls to mind candy and curly-haired little girls. Just as she is putting the piccolo to her lips for a last rendition before calling out the night shift crew, she spies a small, trembling figure on the shore. Concerned, she puts down her piccolo, and takes up her telescope.) > Eloise, who wonders how many members of this list, apart from Tabouli, she's unintentionally insulted and wishes she'd kept hold of that cape so that she could hide her shame. Insulted? Me? By ethnocentrism? Ach, Eloise, fear not. I spent an entire thesis arguing that ethnocentrism is perfectly normal, and have spent countless hours interviewing people and trying to get past their negative cross-cultural experiences and *express* their ethnocentric/prejudiced opinions so that I can try to interpret what cultural clashes caused them and give them advice on what to do about them (not, as they imagine, denounce them as foul racists and turn them in to Equal Opportunity). I'm constantly discovering new dimensions to my *own* ethnocentrism. I also firmly believe that making people feel defensive and threatened is not a good way to change their attitudes. Attack someone's position, they defend it; undermine it (with new insights and information), and they shift it. To er, bring this back to canon, I think JKR is having great fun with wizard ethnocentrism. It's the ol' "visiting alien" game that lots of authors and film-makers play - showing the audience how bizarre their own culture is, seen by a total outsider. My favorite here is the Muggle world seen through the eyes of Arthur Weasley... Eloise: > Having sent a post in which I suggested that the MoM suffers from institutionalised racism, I fell to considering asking Tabouli how Chinese witches and wizards get around ( clouds, like Monkey?). Then it hit me. Tabouli..... Australia...... I missed out a large chunk of the world when I suggested that broomstick travel was confined to Europe and North America. At this point hysteria nearly gripped me. Confessions of guilt were about to pour from my lips.< Errrr... errr... Chinese wizards? Not a clue, to be honest (dragonback?), though I could find out for you by asking people I know who were educated in Chinese and would be familiar with Chinese fairytales and so forth. Unless we have someone wiser than I in the ways of Chinese mythology already on the list...? I was raised in Australia with the Brothers Grimm and Mother Goose (though I did see Monkey as a child!). I remember reading something on the Net about how they explained the broomsticks in the Chinese translation, but I've no idea where it was. I remember them saying it was a problem, because Chinese children would never have heard of the flying broomstick concept... Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From adhara_black at yahoo.co.uk Fri Mar 1 10:55:53 2002 From: adhara_black at yahoo.co.uk (adhara_black) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 10:55:53 -0000 Subject: Sirius' laughter In-Reply-To: <01e801c1c103$2be560c0$d4c71bce@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35918 Eric wrote : One explanation for Sirius Black being found laughing like a loon when the Aurors swooped down on him after Peter Pettigrew got away has not, as far as I know, been put forward: A Cheering Charm. Even though, _compared to his three pals who were some of the best in their year,_ Peter Pettigrew is not much of a spell-flinger, a Cheering Charm should be well within his capabilities. Adhara writes: Nice theory Eric. To be honest, the events of that fateful night and Sirius' role/behaviour at the time is something that's driving me up the wall (is there a counter curse for that?!). So, OK, Fudge was one of the first ones on the scene and it was claimed that Sirius was found laughing his head off, but we've been going over and over this and I'm still not convinced this is what really happened. Isn't it true that once people suspect someone to be evil they find it very easy to attribute a few nasty characteristics to that person, and readily accept any 'facts' when they are nothing but fiction added by excited gossipers?(or, as in Fudge's case perhaps, to make it more convincing). That night made Sirius a legend in the wizarding world - a story like that could easily start living a life of its own. Adhara - who desperately hopes JKR is going to throw some light on this sooner or later..... From tabouli at unite.com.au Fri Mar 1 11:06:10 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 22:06:10 +1100 Subject: FILK: When I'm Voldemort Message-ID: <000d01c1c111$3158ea00$b00edccb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 35919 Marina: > I hang out in a dungeon that a nicer guy would wither in, > It doesn't bother me at all because I am a Slytherin. When I come upon lines as magnificent as this, I feel I should probably stick to acronyms, but once upon a time many moons ago while muttering on-list about Voldemort's shortcomings as a villain (and how Tom Riddle would be appalled to see his later self), I *did* sketch out a couple of lines of "When I'm Voldemort". Then today, when I saw Pippin's fine filking using the same song, I decided to finish it off... WHEN I'M VOLDEMORT (to the Beatles' "When I'm 64", with no final T pronunciation of Voldermort) SCENE: Tom Riddle, having fiendishly purloined Professor Trelawney's crystal ball, is peering into it, using his dark powers to glean glimpses of his future. What he sees drains the blood from his handsome young face. Surely he would never be so stupid as to alienate his entire support base by getting himself totalled by a tot and then resurrected as a snake-monster... would he? "When I grow old and ugly as sin, Many years from now, Will my team respect me with a pallid skin, Blood-red eyes and skeleton-thin? When my face looks and sounds like a snake, Will they shut the door? Will they still need me, will they still heed me, When I'm Voldemort? How long will they wait? And when I press the Mark, Will they Apparate? When little Harry drives me away Bouncing my AK, Will the 'Eaters still be standing by my side, Will this Potter scupper my pride? Will they pretend they weren't on my team? Will I lose the war? Will they still need me, will they still heed me, When I'm Voldemort?" Every night Tom worried that his future wouldn't turn out right, Then it all came clear: "Well, if they're not brave, I'll have them on their knees, I'll make them behave! I'm making plans, now, I will be fine - Quirrell will be mine! Hide beneath his turban, be his second face, Get young Barty onto the case; With Harry's blood, and Wormtail's right hand, Stronger than before, I'll make them heed me, oh yes indeedy! When I'm Voldemort!" --- Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From adatole at yahoo.com Fri Mar 1 12:10:08 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (adatole) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 12:10:08 -0000 Subject: Fred and George's wager on the Quidditch World Cup In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35920 OK, another newbie checking in. And this is the precise topic that motivated me to getting onto this group! Thanks to all who have given their thoughtful commentary so far. > > Theory #1: the match was fixed. But Krum wasn't shown to be a bad > > guy--and why would the twins, of all people, be in the know? > I wholeheartedly discount this thought. It just doesn't fit in terms of plot, character introduction, etc. There were so many other things going on during the match - Crouch invisible in the stands, learning about different races (leprechauns, etc), all the new "toys" (the spy glasses). I think that asking the reader to pick up on clues to foul play is too much. And if there is one thing JK has consistantly done, it's drop hints about what's coming. Ms. Figg is a good example. You may not catch it now, but later on you'll go back and say "oh yeah". > > Theory #2: they divined the result. But JKR has led us to believe > > that true divination is very rare, and they haven't shown > predictive > > powers any other time. This holds the most promise for me, with another twist. Perhaps being identical twins actually helps. In theory, one twin acts as an "anchor" to the current time, while the other "moves" through time to see the potential result. Most "singletons" couldn't do it, or it would be very hard. But perhaps the twins have found it easier and could use it to their advantage. They certainly have never suffered very badly in all their exploits. Despite their reputation for being troublemakers, they have avoided being expelled or even reprimanded (except from their mother). > > I have a third theory for you to consider. What if they had gotten > ahold of a time-turner? Perhaps the one Hermione turned back in to > Professor McGonagall some weeks before? Do you think they would be > able to rationalize cheating in this way? It's interesting, and certainly not beyond them. However, I don't believe McGonagall keeps a stash of time-turners on hand, and I think the devices are strictly regulated. Therefore it couldn't just disappear and not cause an all-out search. > > And even if that has been known to happen once in > > a blue moon, why would Fred and George bet all their money on it?? > > I agree. I just can't see them taking such a foolish risk--unless > they knew for a certainty that it would pay off. I just have to add my agreement to the bunch. There was no point spread, no "grey area" that they could hope to fit into. They called the end of the match with prescient accuracy. IMHO, it has to be more than a coincidence. Leon From Edblanning at aol.com Fri Mar 1 13:02:05 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:02:05 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Identifiable flying object (was: Sirius's Motorcycle) Message-ID: <13.759745c.29b0d5cd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 35921 In a message dated 28/02/02 22:16:33 GMT Standard Time, boggles at earthlink.net writes: > At 7:16 AM -0500 2/28/02, Edblanning at aol.com wrote: > > > >Didn't Arthur Weasley frame the act? > > Er - which act? Ron and Harry stealing the car, or Sirius's "framing"? > The Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Act, the one which means that cars aren't supposed to fly. Sorry, I thought it was clear that I was suggesting an answer to your question, >And why are all these allowed (well, the Anglia isn't >really, but presumably the others are) and the flying carpets >disallowed? Wizarding law seems oddly confused on the subject of >identifiable flying objects. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pen at pensnest.co.uk Fri Mar 1 12:44:19 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 12:44:19 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] FILK: "I Am the Very Model of an Anti-Hero Archetype" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35922 >I Am the Very Model of an Anti-Hero Archetype >to the tune of "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General", from >Pirates of Penzance http://math.boisestate.edu/ gas/pirates/html/p13.mid ***Wild applause!*** Pen From pen at pensnest.co.uk Fri Mar 1 13:14:21 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:14:21 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Molly with the Twins & some more Percy In-Reply-To: <3C7EFEA6.2080300@swbell.net> References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35923 Penny said: >So, it's okay with you two if she just chooses the best career for the >Twins, regardless of what they might prefer? They are pretty >obviously not cut out for the drone of govt work in the MoM, and they >pretty definitely have started taking steps to avoid that situation. >Molly, OTOH, has taken an active stance to *interfere* with their >ambitions during the summer prior to their final year in school. It must be such a relief to Molly that her third son has gone into a nice, 'safe' office job. (I suspect the MoM will turn out not to be a safe place at all, but from Molly's POV it must be good to have her child working more or less regular hours and coming home at nights so that she can keep an eye on him.) The eldest is a curse-breaker, far away from home. The second works with dragons - dragons! - far away from home. As a mother, she must be in constant fear of the owl arriving with a black-bordered letter to tell her that Bill or Charlie has been killed, or terribly injured. She seems to be reconciled to their choices, but I bet there were some very exciting arguments when Bill and Charlie announced that they'd accepted their job offers! I can't really blame poor Molly for wanting the twins to work somewhere nice and quiet, where they won't be forever igniting things and setting off explosions... She knows how reckless they are. Betcha she won't want Ron to be an Auror, either, even if it is more respectable than running a joke shop. But the Weasleys are all strong personalities, and it's fairly plain none of them will let Mum's worries dictate their lives. Mind you, I bet a lot of Molly's ire at the joke shop idea is due to the number of times Gred and Forge have driven her to frothing madness with their inopportune fake wands and other, er, novelties. She's probably been 'had' so many times that the very thought of another 'joke' sends her round the bend. Must be a lot easier mothering a Percy-type. Pen From Edblanning at aol.com Fri Mar 1 13:47:42 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:47:42 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] FILK: "I Am the Very Model of an Anti-Hero Archetype" Message-ID: <12b.d1b33de.29b0e07e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 35924 In a message dated 28/02/02 22:24:04 GMT Standard Time, editor at texas.net writes: > I am truly sorry, I am. But I can't help myself, this is a true work of > genius and must be saluted as such, even though I have absolutely nothing of > substance to add. Bravo, bravo, bravo! This one's getting printed out and > stuck on the wall above my desk. At home *and* at work. > > --Amanda > Yep. Sheer genius. I've already printed mine out. But you can't stop there, Marina. How about a song for the trio, based on Three Little Girls from School? And Tabouli could have, 'I am the Captain of the Lollipop (and a right good captain too), or else Karkaroff could have it (I am the Captain of the Durmstrang Ship). Sirius could have 'Poor, Wandering One'. Crouch, of course, would Have his Little List. Fudge could have the one in which, 'He led his regiment from behind, he found it less exciting'. (Sorry, I'm not as au fait with G&S as I used to be, I used too know huge chunks off by heart. Yea, I know, sad isn't it?) Let's not forget the animals: 'I'm called Mrs Norris, dear Mrs Norris, though I shall never know why' Yes... whole operettas to be rewritten. Well, don't let me delay you any more, Marina... Your mission, should you choose to accept it....:-) In admiration, Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jklb66 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 1 15:04:37 2002 From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 15:04:37 -0000 Subject: Neville visiting his parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35925 Someone asked, "Any thoughts on why he [Neville] is taken to visit his parents?" And Kimberly answered, "He visits his parents because they're his parents, it's what one does." I agree. It doesn't matter that they can't recognize him; they are still his parents and it isn't strange that he visits them occasionally. Similarly, in CoS, Harry and Ron want to go visit Hermione in the hospital wing even though she has been petrified and won't know that they are there. No, I'm not talking about the time they lie and tell McGonagall that they want to see Hermione (to cover up for snooping near Myrtle's bathroom) but before that when she is newly petrified. The 1st page of ch. 15, "Harry and Ron had tried to visit Hermione, but visitors were now barred from the hospital wing." They had already seen her immediatley after she was petrified, so they knew she wouldn't be aware of their presence, but they wanted to visit her anyway. From jklb66 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 1 15:07:14 2002 From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 15:07:14 -0000 Subject: FILK: "I Am the Very Model of an Anti-Hero Archetype" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35926 Bravo! Bravo! Encore! From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Mar 1 16:57:48 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 16:57:48 -0000 Subject: FILK: When a DE's not Engaged in His Employment Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35927 Elkins walks in wearing a police uniform, followed by HPFGUers, similarily attired. Elkins: Grey. I tell you. Grey. Snape liked his death-eater friends. Chorus: That makes a difference, of course. At the same time, we repeat, we cannot understand it at all. Elkins: No matter. Our course is clear. We must to do our best to devise bloody ambushes for them all. It is most distressing to us to be the agents whereby our erring fellow-creatures are deprived of that life and sanity which is so dear to us all-- but we should have thought of that before we became Potter fans. Chorus: We should! Elkins: It is too late now! Chorus: It is! Elkins: When a DE's not engaged in his employment Chorus: His employment Elkins: Or maturing his felonious little plans, Chorus:Little plans, Elkins: His capacity for innocent enjoyment Chorus: 'Cent enjoyment Elkins: Is just as great as any honest man's. Chorus: Honest man's. Elkins: Our feelings we with difficulty smother Chorus: 'Culty smother Elkins: When bloodythirsty speculation's to be done. Chorus: To be done. Elkins: Ah, take one consideration with another, Chorus: With another, Elkins: A FEATHERBOA's lot is not a happy one. Chorus: Ah, when bloodythirsty speculation's to be done, to be done. A FEATHERBOA's lot is not a happy one. Elkins:When the evil Ms. Lestrange is not a-killing Chorus: Not a-killing Elkins: When her husband isn't sending Frank insane. Chorus: Frank insane. Elkins: Outside, to song bird's notes they sit a-thrilling Chorus: Sit a-thrilling. Elkins: And stroll together down a lover's lane. Chorus: Lover's lane. Elkins: When Crouch Jr.'s finished driving mad the mother. Chorus:Mad the mother. Elkins: He loves to give encouragement to her son. Chorus: To her son. Elkins: Ah, take one consideration with another, Chorus:With another. Elkins:A FEATHERBOA's lot is not a happy one. Chorus: Ah, when bloodythirsty speculation's to be done, to be done, A FEATHERBOA's lot is not a happy one, happy one. All:(marching off) Tarantara! Tarantara! Tarantara! Tarantara! Tarantara! Tarantara! Tarantara! Tarantara! Tarantara! Tarantara! Tarantara! Tarantara! ------- Apologies to Elkins and my other fellow FEATHERBOAS. Eileen From Ali at zymurgy.org Fri Mar 1 17:20:19 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 17:20:19 -0000 Subject: The Big Bangers and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35928 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: We'll push Neville's birthday back to the very late winter of > 1980, the Event can occur in 1982, and it can be Neville's second > birthday. Okay? That way, I don't have to swallow down any more of > that Everything-Happens-In-1981 that annoys me so much, you can still > have things happening reasonably quickly, the Lestranges can have > been reasonably swift-to-take-action, Neville can be unquestionably a > toddler (I like to think that he was just entering that horrid "NO!" > stage at the time), and we can still have gaily-wrapped parcels > trodden underfoot. > > Also, that way we can declare Neville to be a Pisces. This is > actually strongly suggested by canon as JKR, in spite of her apparent > distaste for divination, nonetheless seems to enjoy giving her > characters apt sun signs (Hermione the Virgo, Harry the Leo, Ron > > > -- Elkins I love the theory, but I have a slight problem with your dating of Neville's birthday. The school year at Hogwarts runs from September to August - the same as the English school year. This means that all the kids in Harry's year should have their birthdays between September 1979 and August 1980. I've read all the arguments about why Hermione's birthday should be September 1980 (meaning she should really be in Ginny's year). Even if this were true (which I still don't believe), I can't think that Neville would be allowed to jump a year. Hermione is very bright and has shown herself well able to achieve the academic standards - no matter how old she is. The same could not be said for Neville, who errr, struggles a bit. Some children do jump a year in English schools, but it is comparatively rare, and I just can't think that Neville would have been allowed to. So, his birthday would have had to have been no later than August 31 1980. Sorry if this puts you back into 1981. Ali From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Mar 1 17:27:13 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 17:27:13 -0000 Subject: FILK: Oh, men of dark and dismal fate Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35929 Voldemort is about to meet his end, but he suddenly throws down his wand, and begins to sing. Voldemort: Oh, men of dark and dismal fate, Forgo your cruel employ, Have pity on my lonely state, I am an orphan boy! Dumbledore/McGonagall: An orphan boy? Voldemort: An orphan boy! The Old Gang: How sad, an orphan boy. Voldemort: These DEs whom you see Are all I have to call my own! Gang: Poor fellow! Voldemort: Take them away from me, And I shall be indeed alone. Gang: Poor fellow! See at our feet they kneel; Our hearts we cannot steel Against the sad, sad tale of the lonely orphan boy! Voldemort: I'm telling a terrible story Since I murdered my father so gory. But they would have ended this grand occupation, And thwarted my world domination, If I hadn't, in elegant diction, Indulged in an innocent fiction, Which is not in the same category As a telling a regular terrible story. ENSEMBLE DEs (aside) The Old Gang(aside) He is telling a terrible story, If he's telling a terrible story. Which will tend to diminish his He shall die by a death that is glory. gory. Though they would have ended He'll find himself dying by this grand occupation, assasination. And thwarted his world To pay for his vile fabrication. domination. DEs and the Old Gang: It is easy, in elegant diction. To call it an innocent fiction, But it comes in the same category As telling a regular terrible story. Voldemort et all: It is easy, in elegant diction. To call it an innocent fiction, But it comes in the same category As telling a regular story. Dumbledore: Although our dark crusade At times involves some dirty dealing (looks at Snape), We'd rather think that we're Not altogether void of feeling. Although we live in strife, We're sorry still to enter in it. For what, we ask, is life Without a touch of Poetry in it? (all kneel) ALL: Hail, Poetry, thou heav'n-born maid! Thou gildest e'en the wizard's trade. Hail, flowing fount of sentiment! All hail, all hail, divine emollient! (all rise) Dumbledore: You may go, for you're at liberty, Our righteous rules protect you, And honorary members of our gang we do elect you! Lucius Malfoy: For he is an orphan boy! All: He is! Hurrah for the orphan boy! Voldemort: And it sometimes is a useful thing To be an orphan boy. All: It is! Hurrah for the orphan boy! Hurrah for the orphan boy! Eileen From cindysphynx at home.com Fri Mar 1 17:57:25 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 17:57:25 -0000 Subject: The Big Bangers and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35930 Kimberly wrote: > When I think of > Neville's backstory I get all misty-eyed and impressed. To me it's > tragic and terrifying and... something else that starts with a T. Uh, oh. I need some help here. Does the third T stand for "True"? What exactly are you trying to say there, Kimberly? ;-) Kimberly again: > So then, did you *like* my insane backstory? Because I did my best > to put in all the Bangs and angst I could. It made me a little > queasy, but I did it for your entertainment. You didn't like my > scenario on the ambush being Snape's idea, so I'm feeling a little > vulnerable now... Oh, not to worry. I love Faith. She's pure, she's thoughtful, she's well-groomed, she's the girl-next-door, she probably wears plaid skirts and tights. She's disciplined enough not to stray from canon *at all* -- what's not to like? I'll let Faith in on a little secret (Faith is probably very good at keeping secrets). It's *tremendously* important to me that Neville have a Bangy backstory, see. Neville isn't Edgy. Or Tough (no, standing up to his friends and enduring a full-body bind does not count). Or Funny. Or Competent at the Big magical arts. Or good under pressure. There's not a whole lot to admire there, for me anyway. He's kind of just vulnerable and rather weak at the moment, IMHO. For the first three books, I wrote Neville off as someone to read past to, uh, get to Lupin. But now, JKR has suggested that there's something going on with Neville. If she leaves the backstory exactly where it is now, that is, exactly as Faith has it, well, it might not be enough to rehabilitate Neville in my eyes. Jklb66 wrote (about why Neville visits his parents): >It doesn't matter that they can't recognize him; they are > still his parents and it isn't strange that he visits them > occasionally. Hmmmm. That's true, if you're Faith. I think the question of why Neville visits his parents is better directed to Memory Charm Neville. If he has no memory of the torture of his parents, I snicker at the idea that he would be very interested in visiting them. But I'll try to snicker behind my hand so no one can see. :-) Elkins wrote: > You still haven't sold me on the entire group of DEs being willing to > spare Neville. I do like my DEs grey, it is true, but I also like > them vile. If they had known the kid was there, then they would have > brutalized him. Well, having all four DEs spare Neville does get rather Bangy, though. We have Avery outside trembling all over. We have Mr. Lestrange basically just trying not to make Mrs. Lestrange mad. We have Crouch Jr. deciding Neville should be spared. So Crouch Jr. decides that this is the time to finally challenge Mrs. Lestrange. You know, in all bad-guy movies, there is a moment when one of the bad guys gets brave and stands up to the Most Supreme Evil bad guy. Ah, more on-camera conflict when Crouch Jr. grabs Mrs. Lestrange's arm just as she is about to curse Neville. Their eyes meet as he holds her arm for just a little bit too long . . . Wait, I didn't mean to go that far. After all, Mr. Lestrange is standing *right there*. But as you see, having Crouch Jr. finally stand up for what is right has Hollywood written all over it. Then, when Crouch Jr. turns out to have been *wrong* and sparing Neville gets them all caught and sent to Azkaban, well . . . It's a good thing Crouch Jr. lost his soul, because if he hadn't, Mrs. Lestrange would have ripped it out of him manually. Elkins again: > The Reverse Memory thing wasn't actually a > charm at all. It was a *potion.* A new and experimental potion, in > fact, which had just recently been invented by that young hotshot of > Dumbledore's -- Severus Snape. I like it, I like it. You see, I originally conceived of it as a charm because I was trying to thwart the Memory Charm crowd. But you're right that now is the time to break free of the Memory Charm straightjacked completely and . . . run about waving our arms freely. It has one disadvantage, in that it shifts the focus back to Snape rather than Moody (who is the one who would cast the Reverse Memory Charm). But then again, Moody's contempt for Snape is extra- compelling if Moody thinks Snape bungled the Memory Retrieval Potion. Yeah, Potion probably works better than Charm. Aside from the fact that we get a humorous shot of Snape forcing icky medicine down the throat of a 2-year old, we can also have the frustration of Snape being unable to concoct an antidote. Cindy (who agrees with Kimberly about Sissy Spacek, and who would admit to having become emotional while watching "In The Bedroom", except that she doesn't admit to things like that) From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Mar 1 18:08:10 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 18:08:10 -0000 Subject: Molly with the Twins & some more Percy In-Reply-To: <3C7EFEA6.2080300@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35931 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce wrote: > Molly, OTOH, has taken an active stance to *interfere* with their > ambitions during the summer prior to their final year in school. "Weasley's Wizard's Wheezes" were dangerous, according to Ron. I can understand why she is down on them going into the joke shop business, based on what she's seen. My mother also very much objects to any suggestions from siblings like, "I want to be a war correspondent." >I guess I just have > reasonably strong feelings about letting your kids be who *they* want to > be, not who *you* want them to be. That's true, but there are two ways of meddling with your kids career ambitions. The first is to drill into the kid's head that they have to be a doctor when they want to take Music. There was a pathetic case up here where a very wealthy woman (whom I knew) sued my old private school for not educating her son well enough so that he could eventually get into Medicine. She dragged it through every court in the land, and managed to expose it to the newspapers that he had always wanted to take a Music degree, had taken one, graduated with honours, and now was off in Europe with his band. She lost her case. But there are also many parents who do have strong opinions about what they hope their kids will do, but don't stand in the way when push comes to shove. > > Exactly. Percy is even ahead of the Lestranges in my book. And JKR > > has promised that Percy's particular problem will be adressed in Book > > V. > > I've not heard *this* before. You always hear this business about Ginny > playing a "bigger" role in Book V (and as I always sarcastically note: > yeah, bigger than her role in PoA or GoF? What would *that* take?). > I've never heard anything about Percy though -- very cool. Can you > provide a cite? "Ginny (Weasley) does have a bigger role in Book Five." Right. You know, that's not much of a promise, though I'd like to see more of Ginny. It's a character promise, not a plot promise, and it's harder to keep than the second. But Percy's is a plot promise. "Hello, Ms Rowling. Just a little question: What's to become of poor old Percy? Will he side with Fudge or with his family?" "Good question! You'll find out in book five!" Barnes&Noble.com, OCTOBER 20, 2000 Now, that's a plot promise, an essential plot promise. You could possibly never get around to further developing Ginny's character, but there's no way you can never get around to answering that "good question." And, as I pointed out, you can't answer the question without taking a much better look at Percy. Eileen From christi0469 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 1 19:23:47 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 19:23:47 -0000 Subject: FILK: "I Am the Very Model of an Anti-Hero Archetype" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35932 I know that I should have cut most of the original song out of this post, but I just couldn't bear to do it. This FILK is absolutely inspired. I just wish there was some way to convince Alan Rickman to perform it on Saturday Night Live, or anywhere for that matter, in full Snape costume. The idea of Snape singing a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta is in my mind intrinsically hysterical. Christi --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > I Am the Very Model of an Anti-Hero Archetype > to the tune of "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major-General", from > Pirates of Penzance > http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/pirates/html/p13.mid > > Scene: Enter SNAPE, swirling his cloak, followed by a chorus of > SLYTHERINS > > SNAPE: > I am the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype, > My condescending manner's guaranteed to make the heroes gripe, > I hang out in a dungeon that a nicer guy would wither in, > It doesn't bother me at all because I am a Slytherin. > I always dress in black with a theatrical and stylish flair, > It makes up for the fact that I don't brush my teeth or wash my hair. > I work with smelly potions in an underground laboratory > And have a gift for sarcasm and other snarky oratory. > > SLYTHERINS: > He has a gift for sarcasm and other snarky oratory, > He has a gift for sarcasm and other snarky oratory, > He has a gift for sarcasm and other snarky oratory! > > SNAPE: > I'm biased toward Malfoy and the other kids in Slytherin, > I terrorize Longbottom into quiverin' and ditherin', > In short I can assure you that I more than live up to the hype > Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype. > > SLYTHERINS: > In short we can assure you that he more than lives up to the hype > Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype. > > SNAPE: > I have an evil history that's murky and mysterious, > I have a vicious grudge against that bloody bastard Sirius, > I torment Harry Potter every opportunity I get, > But when he is imperiled I am always there to save the brat. > I was a double-agent in the previous Death Eater war, > And now I go again to risk my scrawny neck for Dumbledore, > Exactly what I'm doing, only JKR can say for sure, > But if I'm caught I'll probably get Crucio'd by Voldemort. > > SLYTHERINS: > But if he's caught he'll probably get Crucio'd by Voldemort, > But if he's caught he'll probably get Crucio'd by Voldemort, > But if he's caught he'll probably get Crucio'd by Voldemort. > > SNAPE: > I'm capable of standing up to hazards occupational, > I'm capable of carrying a grudge cross-generational, > In short I can assure you that I more than live up to the hype > Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype. > > SLYTHERINS: > In short we can assure you that he more than lives up to the hype > Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype. > > SNAPE: > In fact, when we discover the true history behind the Prank, > And learn the real reasons for my quitting the Death Eater ranks, > And why I knew Dark Magic by the time I first showed up at school, > And whether I'll make Dumbledore look like a genius or a fool, > And if Karkaroff mentored me the way he mentors Victor Krum, > And if I ever really had a crush on Harry Potter's mum, > In short, when Jo reveals the truth behind my nastiness and rage, > You'll say a better archetype has never stalked across a page. > > SLYTHERINS: > In short, when Jo reveals the truth behind his nastiness and rage, > You'll say a better archetype has never stalked across a page. > > SNAPE: > I'm complicated and intense, heroic and despicable, > My motives are so twisted, some would say they're inexplicable, > In short I can assure you that I more than live up to the hype > Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype. > > SLYTHERINS: > In short, we can assure you that he more than lives up to the hype > Of being the very model of an Anti-Hero Archetype! > > > Marina > rusalka at i... From greyshi at yahoo.com Fri Mar 1 18:57:07 2002 From: greyshi at yahoo.com (greyshi) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 18:57:07 -0000 Subject: Soothing Eloise re ethnocentrism, Chinese wizards In-Reply-To: <003501c1c10f$93355260$3d0bdccb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35933 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" wrote: > Errrr... errr... Chinese wizards? Not a clue, to be honest (dragonback?), though I could find out for you by asking people I know who were educated in Chinese and would be familiar with Chinese fairytales and so forth. Unless we have someone wiser than I in the ways of Chinese mythology already on the list...? I was raised in Australia with the Brothers Grimm and Mother Goose (though I did see Monkey as a child!). I remember reading something on the Net about how they explained the broomsticks in the Chinese translation, but I've no idea where it was. I remember them saying it was a problem, because Chinese children would never have heard of the flying broomstick concept... Ah, I can help here! If JKR were to use Chinese stories as a basis for what any Chinese wizards might do, then they'd probably jump-fly like in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. While most Western audiences found this to be really odd in the movie, it's normal for fantasy characters with "powers." OTOH, one of the most well known wizards in Chinese legend is Zhuge Liang and he traveled the way everyone else did. Boat, horseback and walking. The clouds that Monkey and his like use are immortal forms of travel. So the idea of using an object like broomsticks would be odd. There is a well-done webpage that deals with how things were translated in the Chinese, Japanese and Vietnamese editions: http://cjvlang.com/Hpotter/index.html Greyshi //Elf Note: Since discussion of other kinds of mythological wizards is potentially very interesting even outside of the HP books (well, to me it is!), make sure that any non-HP-related follow-ups to this topic mosey over to the HPfGU-Chatter list! ~ MaHoney Elf// From pennylin at swbell.net Fri Mar 1 21:03:24 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 15:03:24 -0600 Subject: ADMIN: Reminder re: One-liners References: Message-ID: <3C7FEC9C.6090208@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 35934 Hi -- I loved Marina's "I am the Very Model of an Anti-Hero Archetype" FILK as much as anyone, but we do need to put a stop to the one-liners praising it. Please! You're more than welcome, of course, to work in some positive comments about this filk into another substantive canon-based message on any topic. :--) Thank you, Penny From slinkie at nids.se Fri Mar 1 22:19:39 2002 From: slinkie at nids.se (eledhwen_0) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 22:19:39 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35935 Hi! Beth wrote: > We know that the Dursley's have a cover story for Harry's absences to > Hogwarts, but what do you think Hermione's parents tell people. Tanie wrote: >To be quite honest, I just had the impression they told others the >truth. They seem to be proud of their daughter, so why hide it? But >I doubt people believe them. I don't think this is the biggest problem, cover stories are easy to make up. The truth works too, but my question is: Why do Hermione's parents or any of the other muggle parents and children belive in the letter from Hogwarts? Harry only believes it because Hagrid convinces him and they can not send a giant to everyone. If I got that letter I would think that it was a prank. Please share your views on this Eledhwen From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com Fri Mar 1 23:13:43 2002 From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 23:13:43 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's Parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35936 >From: "eledhwen_0" >my question is: Why do Hermione's >parents or any of the other muggle parents and children belive in the >letter from Hogwarts? Harry only believes it because Hagrid convinces >him and they can not send a giant to everyone. If I got that letter I >would think that it was a prank. I've always thought that Harry got a very simple letter, telling him he'd been admitted and with very limited instructions, because Dumbledore had left a letter of explanation with the Dursleys when Harry was left in their care [SS/PS, Chapter 1], telling them how to explain things to him. It was the Dursleys' attempt to 'beat the magic out of him' that kept him from being completely prepared when he received the note, and made Hagrid's intervention necessary. In the case of a totally Muggle-born witch or wizard, you would think that they would send, at the very least, much more detailed instructions or even a representative, either from the school or from the Ministry, to explain the situation and make sure that there were no misunderstandings. Hermione mentions no representative, just the note, but she may just be being uncharacteristically brief. After all, all it would take is a trip to the Leaky Cauldron, a tavern that *only your child can see and guide you into* to make me start rethinking reality. J _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From huntleyl at mssm.org Fri Mar 1 23:32:55 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 18:32:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione WAS percy/molly/hermione References: Message-ID: <003301c1c179$6a420640$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 35937 Jo Serendust said: >Gee Laura, you were doing so well with Molly..... >I had just gotten all comfy in her lap, ready for my bedtime story >and, well, now I'm all upset and bothered. ^_~ That's me...messing with your head. *melodramatic evil cackle*... Jo continues: >Firstly, have you ever actually had to deal with anyone like >Hermione in the first year? Uhm..when I was that age, I knew quite a few people like Hermione...*coughs* actually, one of them was me..(I have been told repeatedly that I "just *have* to be right"... :( it's just that my idea of a friendly debate seems to be everyone else's idea of a violent verbal assault -- seriously, I have no idea I'm doing it) However, it seems like you are referring more to her fanatical insistence that she and everyone else absolutely must follow the rules (a trait which, I am sorry to say, I certainly *do not* share with her ^_~)...In this aspect, a girl I've known since fourth grade comes to mind (which, incidentally, is about the age of the kids in PS/SS). The more I consider it, the more I suspect that this girl *is* Hermione. I remember well my first day at the tiny private school I had opted to attend (the public grammar school were I live is simply horrid). It was Wednesday, and the kids at this school were required to dress up on Wednesday, and I thoroughly abhorred dressing up at that age. So there I was in my little white dress with my thick white socking and bulky little boots, and up comes this girl with frizzy brown hair and overlarge ears, who promptly orders me to get down on my knees so that she could tell if my skirt was too short. Well, given my personality at that time, I was *this close* to punching her, however, after this not-so-pleasant first encounter, this girl has come to be one of the *few*, and I do mean *few* friends that I absolutely trust and admire. We have not always been friends, nor have we ever been insanely close, however, I have *always* recognized the rarity and strength of her qualities. I never worry about her as I do for many of my other friends (some of whom seem bent on destroying themselves and taking down everyone else around them). I know she will always be doing the right thing. She's one of the strongest people I know. Hermione is like this. She hates to break rules, yet if the situation calls for it, she is more than ready to sacrifice her obedience to her elders for the greater good. Remember drugging Crabbe and Goyle in CoS? To me, her potential to do something like that if need be has always been apparent to me. Not only that, she is *not* as stuck-up as people imagine her to be. She seems strong in assessing other's good qualities, as is made apparent in her words to Harry before he faced off with Voldie in PS/SS. Furthermore, I believe her tendencies to "show off" in class have more to do with her excitement at learning than any sort of arrogance. I have also been accused of being too vocal in the classroom and I assure you that, for me at least, it has nothing to do with wanting to show off what I know and everything to do with being absorbed with the material. Jo some more: >As for her great loyalty to Ron, she sure showed that during the >whole Crookshanks/Scabbers conflict in PoA. He repeatedly asks her >to keep the cat away from his already ailing pet, and she completely >ignores his feelings, although I can't see why anyone would find his >request to be unreasonable at all. mmm...well, I don't know about other people's cats, but it is pretty near *impossible* to keep mine from being *anywhere* she wants to be (even now when she's getting quite old). It *is* pretty unreasonable of Ron to ask Hermione to try to keep Crookshanks away from Scabbers. What's she supposed to do? Lock him in her room? Impossible. Every time someone opened the door the cat would have gone streaking out and (I don't know how cats do this, but, trust me, they do) would have seemed to have completely disappeared until everyone had given up looking for him. Furthermore, imagine locking a cat in a bedroom 24 hours a day. What a nightmare. It's not like she could have carried him around with her either. Crookshanks is a big cat, and, trust me, she wouldn't have been able to hold him if and when he really wanted to get away. The logical solution to the apparent problem would have been to keep Scabbers in Ron's room. I mean, the rat is sick and not really surfacing for air from Ron's pocket much anyway (I think PoA mentions that he *did* stick his nose out to "sniff hopefully" at the Christmas dinner), the room would have been more than an adequate place for him. Plus, as far as anyone could know, Crookshanks couldn't open doors, so Scabbers would be safe. Although, of course, Scabbers did fake his own death in the room, so Ron wouldn't have known this. Furthermore, Hermione is a *very* sensible person. What would you say if someone accused your cat of "having it out" for a rat? Cats aren't really supposed to think that way now, are they? Anyway, my point is, there was really no way to contain Crookshanks, while Scabbers would have been better off in Ron's room anyway, even if there was no Crookshanks -- what's Ron doing lugging a sick rat around anyway? The poor thing belongs somewhere quiet, dark, and peaceful. > Her insensitivity to others can >be breathtaking at times. Remember her response to the death of >Lavenders rabbit? She consistently favors being right >over being kind. I'm sorry, but I flat-out disagree with this one. First of all, Lavender was being a little...well, silly, at this instance, and, if I do recall, Hermione was trying very hard to approach the topic delicately, while still point out that perhaps Prof. Trelawney may not be all-powerful -- which I would like to point out Lavender *needs* to know. It's not healthy, the way she and Pavarti view the old fraud. Frankly, I see it as dangerous. That kind of naivety and susceptibility to cons can only lead to pain and trouble. Sometimes it is necessary to be insensitive in order to help others in the long run. Furthermore, I see her as *very* receptive to other people's feelings. I have, in previous posts, listed instances in which this hold true, but I will repeat them here for the sake of argument. 1. When Moody performs Crucio on the spider, Hermione (quite distressed for her friend, it seems) tells him to stop on behalf of Neville, who seems to be having a nervous breakdown. There was no indication that anyone even noticed that Neville was upset, and if they had, from the way the class views Neville, they would probably have assumed that it was just him being his easily-terrified self. Neville himself tells Ron that Hermione has "always been really nice, helping him out with work and stuff." As far as I can see, Hermione is the most sensitive person towards Neville in the entire school. While most everyone else scorns or laughs at him (or both), Hermione is always trying to help him out. Furthermore, she can't be all *that* insensitive, bossy, intimidating, etc. if Neville had the nerve in the first part to ask her out. Obviously he deems her to be approachable, at the very least. 2. When Harry wakes up after his fight with Ron, he is dreading going to the Great Hall for breakfast, yet he is hungry and he doesn't want to stay in the common room lest he be molested by the Creevey Brothers. And, wa-la, there is Hermione, bringing food, reassurance, explanations, and the suggestion to take a walk. She doesn't just take Harry's side either, GoF says she goes between the both of them, trying to get them to talk to each other again. She tries to get each boy to see the other side of the situation, and BTW, she's at least more sensitive towards Ron's feelings than Harry -- she knows *exactly* what's wrong with the ornery little red-head right from the start. *sigh* I was going to list more, but I'm kind of getting sick of typing...^_~ anyway, of course Hermione isn't perfect, but I still think she's a pretty admirable person. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jferer at yahoo.com Fri Mar 1 23:44:37 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 23:44:37 -0000 Subject: Mountains=the "new place" ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35938 Reepicheepuk:"Well, even IF we take for granted SOMEONE's going to die, I don't see why you assume it's going to be Hagrid. You would need to be more specific about that. (Of course, I don't like the idea of him dying, that's obvious.) If GoF is anything to go on, I feel it more likely that some minor character is going to be the victim, anyway." If JKR just gave up some cannon fodder, she wouldn't be developing the theme she's written about all through the series, especially in GoF: the fight against Voldemort isn't a game. Heroes, like Harry, pay a price, and good people die. Writing it will be difficult. I don't believe that JKR will flinch from it. We're going to lose someone important we really care about, I believe in OotP, and that victim won't be the last. Hagrid is a likely candidate, but it could be Sirius, Lupin, or somebody else; maybe even Ron, although I don't think so. Harry will pay the heaviest price, whether he lives or not. From porphyria at mindspring.com Fri Mar 1 23:48:50 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 18:48:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's Parents, Muggle skepticism Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35939 eledhwen asked: >my question is: Why do Hermione's >parents or any of the other muggle parents and children belive in the >letter from Hogwarts? And Jake suggested: > In the case of a totally Muggle-born witch or wizard, you would > think that > they would send, at the very least, much more detailed instructions > or even > a representative, either from the school or from the Ministry, to > explain > the situation and make sure that there were no misunderstandings. You would think! What I think is interesting is the implied value judgments against the various Muggle characters based on their attitude towards magic. Clearly the Dursley's loathe the concept of magic because it clashes with their idea of 'normalcy' and this is one of the many reasons the reader is expected to hate them. And they are an extreme case ("the biggest Muggles I ever laid eyes on" as Hagrid says). But even 'Muggle-loving' characters like Arthur Weasley can't help but condescend a bit to Muggle skepticism such as when he remarks "Bless them, they'll go to any lengths to ignore magic, even if it's staring them in the face" (on the subject of shrinking door keys in CoS). So there seems to be an underlying attitude that Muggles are a bit to be pitied because they fail to believe in a magic which the Wizarding world has made it a matter of law to keep secret from them. "But what does a Ministry of Magic do?" "Well, their main job is to keep it from the Muggles that there's still witches an' wizards up an' down the country." So my take on the Grangers is that we the reader are supposed to be impressed with their cooperative spirit and acceptance of magic -- the Grangers acceptance of the existence of magic *literally goes without saying* because we are supposed to read them as 'good Muggles' and unusual ones at that. Still, they balk at the idea of Hermione getting her teeth fixed through magic (teeth being too important to them to mess around with), so I guess even they are shown to remain a little unenlightened. :-) But the fact that in every other respect they support their daughter seems to mark them as being the cream of the Muggle crop. I guess this actually piques me a little bit because I wonder why there's so much hostility towards typical Muggle disbelief. Are there no nice, loving, helpful, well-meaning Muggles who happen to be skeptics? Any thoughts? Am I reading this wrong? ~~Porphyria From siskiou at earthlink.net Sat Mar 2 00:25:31 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:25:31 -0800 Subject: Hermione and Ron (not ship) was:Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Was Percy! now Percy/Molly/Hermione In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4660998123.20020301162531@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 35940 Hi, Thursday, February 28, 2002, 9:20:40 PM, serenadust wrote: > As for her great loyalty to Ron, she sure showed that during the > whole Crookshanks/Scabbers conflict in PoA. I'll have to read the books again with this in mind. Hermione might be very loyal to Harry, and in extension to Ron, because Harry and Ron are friends, but does Hermione like Ron on his own? She does seem concerned when he's in danger, which makes me think she does like him (talking about friendship here, not ship), but otherwise they are more at odds than not. And it's not always Ron who starts the squabbles. After only one reading of the books I've probably missed out on a lot of details. Are there any instances mentioned where Ron and Hermione do something together, that's not about helping Harry? -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From keegan at mcn.org Sat Mar 2 00:46:02 2002 From: keegan at mcn.org (Catherine Keegan) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 16:46:02 -0800 Subject: Hermione and Crookshanks In-Reply-To: <003301c1c179$6a420640$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> References: Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20020301163953.009f6ca0@mail.mcn.org> No: HPFGUIDX 35941 At 06:32 PM 3/1/02 -0500, Laura wrote: > It *is* pretty unreasonable of Ron to ask Hermione to try to keep > Crookshanks away from Scabbers. What's she supposed to do? Lock him in > her room? Impossible. Every time someone opened the door the cat would > have gone streaking out The cat is her responsibility. I don't think it was at all unreasonable of Ron to ask her to keep her cat under control. For the smartest witch of her grade, she shows an amazing stupidity in this case. The darn cat even follows her into the boys' room. She makes little effort to do anything to control the beast. Surely, the smartest witch of her grade should be able to make up some kind of spell that would keep him in her room or perhaps exclude him from the boys' side of the tower. Nope. Not buying that one. Catherine in California From srae1971 at iglou.com Sat Mar 2 01:37:29 2002 From: srae1971 at iglou.com (Shannon) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 20:37:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020301203729.00ab4650@pop.iglou.com> No: HPFGUIDX 35942 At 10:19 PM 3/1/2002 -0000, Eldhwen wrote: >I don't think this is the biggest problem, cover stories are easy to >make up. The truth works too, but my question is: Why do Hermione's >parents or any of the other muggle parents and children belive in the >letter from Hogwarts? Harry only believes it because Hagrid convinces >him and they can not send a giant to everyone. If I got that letter I >would think that it was a prank. I would assume that for Muggle parents there is some sort of follow up to the letter. Harry didn't get one because they thought the Dursleys had told him all about his own parents. As for a cover story, I suppose they could always say that Hermione is going to a school in another part of the country, or even another country altogether. I doubt, given the lengths to which the wizarding world goes in order to hide their existence from the general Muggle population, that the truth would be an option. Shannon From saintbacchus at yahoo.com Sat Mar 2 01:26:46 2002 From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 01:26:46 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Parents, Muggle skepticism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35943 Eledhwen writes: << I don't think this is the biggest problem, cover stories are easy to make up. The truth works too, but my question is: Why do Hermione's parents or any of the other muggle parents and children belive in the letter from Hogwarts? >> On cover stories, there's always classic British subtlety, of course. "Hermione goes to a private school, where she's at the head of her class," etc. There's no need to mention O.W.L.S. or wizarding at all, for a clever speaker. Even so, I have to wonder: with the apparent boom in Muggle-born wizards, how does the Wizarding World defend themselves against word-of-mouth and so on? Muggles have friends, probably also Muggles, so...? Also, are these standards international, or are there places where Muggles and wizards live together without the hush-hush? J's idea of sending a representative is logical and believable; I think private schools do that sometimes, or can be requested to do so. Then again, the whole of my knowledge of private schools comes from reading X-Men comics, so I could be wrong. ^_~ Porphyria continues: << What I think is interesting is the implied value judgments against the various Muggle characters based on their attitude towards magic. ... I guess this actually piques me a little bit because I wonder why there's so much hostility towards typical Muggle disbelief. Are there no nice, loving, helpful, well-meaning Muggles who happen to be skeptics? >> Hagrid also doesn't give Muggles much credit when he notes that "everyone would be wanting magical solutions to their problems." Sure, a lot of people would, but how many others would be leery of it, like the Grangers? For that matter, what's keeping the whole of the Wizarding World from using magical solutions to THEIR problems? Lockhart sure doesn't seem to have a problem with obliviating the occasional hero. One movie reviewer described Rowling's "rage at the Muggle world" - I didn't notice it myself, but now that you've fleshed it out a bit, I see what you're both on to. Although a lot of it seems to be Rowling's own attitude, I'm inclined to read it as a bit of racial-type tension in the Wizard World. Even when "inter-magical" couples exist, they either don't last (Mr. & Mrs. Riddle) or there's some tension (Seamus Finnegan's parents). I'm on my second read-through now - just finished CoS - so I've probably missed something, but I don't recall anyone who has a name (besides Seamus) being half-blood. In any case, this kind of tension has logically got to bubble over sooner or later, but I don't know whether it actually will.... --Anna, facing a crisis: Harry or Zelda? From catlover at netwrx1.com Sat Mar 2 01:13:20 2002 From: catlover at netwrx1.com (Kim Heikkinen) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 19:13:20 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione and Crookshanks In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20020301163953.009f6ca0@mail.mcn.org> References: <003301c1c179$6a420640$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: <4.3.0.20020301190710.00d8ecc0@pop.netwrx1.net> No: HPFGUIDX 35944 Catherine in California wrote: >The cat is her responsibility. I don't think it was at all unreasonable of >Ron to ask her to keep her cat under control. For the smartest witch of >her grade, she shows an amazing stupidity in this case. The darn cat even >follows her into the boys' room. She makes little effort to do anything to >control the beast. Surely, the smartest witch of her grade should be able >to make up some kind of spell that would keep him in her room or perhaps >exclude him from the boys' side of the tower. Nope. Not buying that one. Obviously, you have never owned a cat. Previous posts have pointed out how much easier it is to keep a sick rat, needing rest, in a room than a healthy cat. If Ron *knows* his rat is sick, why doesn't he keep it in a quiet, dark, secluded space? Why let it be at large? Why drag it around in his pocket, bouncing it this way and that? Why doesn't RON create a spell that will keep Crookshanks out of the boys' dormitory? "Nope. Not buying that one." Kim, catlover to the core ******************************************************************* Kim Heikkinen catlover at netwrx1.com "I may not be an explorer, or an adventurer, or a treasure seeker, or a gunfighter...but I am proud of what I am...I AM A LIBRARIAN!!!"--The Mummy Don't blame me, I voted for Gore! http://www.fight4choice.com It's hard to be angry when a cat is sitting in your lap... ******************************************************************* [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From srae1971 at iglou.com Sat Mar 2 01:59:02 2002 From: srae1971 at iglou.com (Shannon) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 20:59:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione WAS percy/molly/hermione In-Reply-To: <003301c1c179$6a420640$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> References: Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020301205902.00ab4650@pop.iglou.com> No: HPFGUIDX 35945 At 06:32 PM 3/1/2002 -0500, Laura wrote: >Furthermore, Hermione is a *very* sensible person. What would you say if someone accused your cat of "having it >out" for a rat? Cats aren't really supposed to think that way now, are they? Well, no. Then again, owls are not supposed to deliver the mail and pictures aren't supposed to challenge you to duels, are they? :) And having known a cat or two in my time, it wouldn't surprise me at all to think that a cat had it in for a particular creature or person. :) Seriously, Hermione has been going to a wizard school for two years at this point. Crookshanks was purchased at a wizarding pet shop. She's seen plenty of strange things, and if she can't even begin to consider something out of the ordinary, then she's not taking her lessons very well. Add to that the fact that Crookshanks positively lunges at Scabbers at every opportunity, while there's no mention of him ever even sniffing at other animals. Yes, it would unwise of a cat to attack an owl, but he doesn't even seem to notice any other animal. If it were just a cat being a cat, poor Trevor would have been lunch long before they reached Hogwarts. Hermione is smart enough to see this, if she was willing. But IMO that's not the worst of it. The worst of it is, she doesn't even seem to be bothered by Crookshanks' repeated attacks on Scabbers...she just gets made at Ron for being upset. > Anyway, my point is, there was really no way to contain Crookshanks, while Scabbers would have been better off in >Ron's room anyway, even if there was no Crookshanks -- what's Ron doing lugging a sick rat around anyway? The poor thing belongs somewhere quiet, dark, and peaceful. As I recall, most of the incidents we see occur either in Ron's dorm, the common room, or on the Hogwart's Express. It's not like he's carrying him all over the school. Shannon From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Mar 2 02:40:09 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 02:40:09 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Ron (not ship) was:Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Was Percy! now Percy/Mol In-Reply-To: <4660998123.20020301162531@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35946 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne wrote: > > Are there any instances mentioned where Ron and Hermione do something together, that's not about helping Harry? > They visit Hogsmeade together in PoA, ch 8, and Ron offers to help Hermione with Buckbeak's appeal in ch. 15. We don't hear that Harry actually does anything, but Ron may have. Ron and Hermione talk about "other things" than Harry's problems, and play chess together in GoF ch. 37. From keegan at mcn.org Sat Mar 2 03:28:09 2002 From: keegan at mcn.org (Catherine Keegan) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 19:28:09 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione and Crookshanks In-Reply-To: <4.3.0.20020301190710.00d8ecc0@pop.netwrx1.net> References: <4.2.0.58.20020301163953.009f6ca0@mail.mcn.org> <003301c1c179$6a420640$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.20020301191913.009fb950@mail.mcn.org> No: HPFGUIDX 35947 At 07:13 PM 3/1/02 -0600, cat lover Kim wrote in response to my argument that Hermione keep her cat in her quarters or at least out of the boys' side of the tower: >Obviously, you have never owned a cat. Incorrect. While I am a dog person by preference, I have had cats. Cats can be kept inside. I have several friends that can prove it and who have very happy and healthy cats, too! Since Crookshanks is probably *more* than a cat, Hermione might not have the knowledge to keep a kneazel or half kneazel in her room but her attitude was completely insensitive. Ron had asked her to keep her cat away from his rat. AFAIK, she never even made an effort to do so. So what if the rat was sickly and probably going to die of old age (even if we all know he was a rat of an entirely other disposition), she should have made some effort to restrain her cat. Catherine in California, dog person and proud of it! From huntleyl at mssm.org Sat Mar 2 03:45:29 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 22:45:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Cho Chang's Name References: Message-ID: <004901c1c19c$b28c90a0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 35948 Someone on this list (I can't remember who), mentioned a site called Harry Potter in Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese. Anyway, I went there and while exploring it came across this passage (in concern to Cho Chang's name).... "There has been a lot of speculation about Cho Chang's name, much of it based on the assumption that J.K. Rowling knows what Cho Chang means in Chinese." My question is: does this imply that Cho Chang actually *has* some kind of meaning in any sense? I always assumed it was pretty much a made up name meant to convey to the reader that Cho is Chinese. hmm..any information on this would be helpful/interesting... laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From boggles at earthlink.net Sat Mar 2 03:46:25 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 21:46:25 -0600 Subject: Percy/Molly/Hermione, IFOs, and the Halfblood Question (again) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35949 At 5:20 AM +0000 3/1/02, serenadust wrote: > >Firstly, have you ever actually had to deal with anyone like >Hermione in the first year? Um, other than myself at the same age? ;) >Remember her response to the death of >Lavenders rabbit? She consistantly favors being right over being >kind. On the two-out-of-three scale - true, kind, and necessary - I think the rabbit incident qualified as both true and necessary, and I think Hermione saw it that way, too. She's usually quite perceptive of, say, Neville's feelings. >I really don't dislike Hermione on the whole, but I don't really see >her as a paragon of all virture either. Well, of course not. Rowling wouldn't be so clumsy as to write a true Mary Sue, now, would she? ;) At 8:02 AM -0500 3/1/02, Edblanning at aol.com wrote, in response to my confusion: >> (me) > > Er - which act? Ron and Harry stealing the car, or Sirius's "framing"? >> > >The Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Act, the one which means that cars aren't >supposed to fly. Sorry, I thought it was clear that I was suggesting an >answer to your question, Ah, oh, oh, you mean the Act! Sorry, if you'd capitalized it I'd've understood what you meant. Eep. Sorry. Although, I think that's a set of laws rather than a single edict - Misuse of Muggle Artifacts has a whole Office at the MoM. The Act that gets mentioned is the Muggle Protection Act, and I can't find anyplace in CoS (*sound of wildly flipping pages*) where it spells out exactly what that Act entails. At 1:26 AM +0000 3/2/02, saintbacchus wrote: >I'm on my second read-through now >- just finished CoS - so I've probably missed something, >but I don't recall anyone who has a name (besides Seamus) >being half-blood. Er, Tom Riddle and Harry for two. Hagrid and Madame Maxime probably count, unless the average giant can do magic. According to Ron in CoS 7 (while I had it out), "most wizards these days are half-blood," so a number of the names we know probably are; it just hasn't become an issue. Perhaps the Patils are the product of a scion of an ancient magical heritage and a Muggle-born. It'd be amusing to find that Dumbledore was a halfblood himself, son of a powerful witch and a befuddled Muggle male, just like Voldemort. Oh, wait. Too obvious, isn't it? If it were true, Lucius would have mentioned it by now. Hmm. McGonigall, then. Or - what if the dreadful skeleton Snape's been hiding in his heritage closet is neither vampire nor dementor, but plain old Muggle-born? Do half-bloods pass muster with the Death Eaters? Voldemort knows that Lily was Muggle-born, but he seems willing to try to charm Harry into the fold in PS/SS. Draco bothers to find out whether Harry's parents were wizards, but doesn't ask how far back their families go. -- - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon boggles at earthlink.net === Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 === GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+ c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+ ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U! From spottydog at worldnet.att.net Sat Mar 2 04:01:39 2002 From: spottydog at worldnet.att.net (CARRIE MUNGAI) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 20:01:39 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione WAS percy/molly/hermione References: <3.0.1.32.20020301205902.00ab4650@pop.iglou.com> Message-ID: <000101c1c19f$26668ba0$b58e520c@s0023817978> No: HPFGUIDX 35950 Okay first posting for me. Animals CAN "have it in for each other". I have witnessed this behavior many times during 'doggie play group'. They recognize each other, gravitate into certain groups and establish a pecking order. Also, certain animals are naturally aggressive toward each other and when one acts in a "flee" manner, the "chaser" will become MORE aggressive as part of the pattern. Some normally aggressive animals can be domesticated to a friendly relationship with a usually antagonistic species. Spottydog ----- Original Message ----- From: Shannon To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 5:59 PM Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione WAS percy/molly/hermione At 06:32 PM 3/1/2002 -0500, Laura wrote: >Furthermore, Hermione is a *very* sensible person. What would you say if someone accused your cat of "having it >out" for a rat? Cats aren't really supposed to think that way now, are they? Well, no. Then again, owls are not supposed to deliver the mail and pictures aren't supposed to challenge you to duels, are they? :) And having known a cat or two in my time, it wouldn't surprise me at all to think that a cat had it in for a particular creature or person. :) Seriously, Hermione has been going to a wizard school for two years at this point. Crookshanks was purchased at a wizarding pet shop. She's seen plenty of strange things, and if she can't even begin to consider something out of the ordinary, then she's not taking her lessons very well. Add to that the fact that Crookshanks positively lunges at Scabbers at every opportunity, while there's no mention of him ever even sniffing at other animals. Yes, it would unwise of a cat to attack an owl, but he doesn't even seem to notice any other animal. If it were just a cat being a cat, poor Trevor would have been lunch long before they reached Hogwarts. Hermione is smart enough to see this, if she was willing. But IMO that's not the worst of it. The worst of it is, she doesn't even seem to be bothered by Crookshanks' repeated attacks on Scabbers...she just gets made at Ron for being upset. > Anyway, my point is, there was really no way to contain Crookshanks, while Scabbers would have been better off in >Ron's room anyway, even if there was no Crookshanks -- what's Ron doing lugging a sick rat around anyway? The poor thing belongs somewhere quiet, dark, and peaceful. As I recall, most of the incidents we see occur either in Ron's dorm, the common room, or on the Hogwart's Express. It's not like he's carrying him all over the school. Shannon 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. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmmears at prodigy.net Sat Mar 2 04:02:32 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 04:02:32 -0000 Subject: Hermione WAS percy/molly/hermione In-Reply-To: <003301c1c179$6a420640$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35951 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" wrote: > Anyway, my point is, there was really no way to contain Crookshanks, while Scabbers would have been better off in Ron's room anyway, even if there was no Crookshanks -- what's Ron doing lugging a sick rat around anyway? The poor thing belongs somewhere quiet, dark, and peaceful. In chapter 4 of CoS, right after Hermione has bought Crookshanks she says to Ron (after he expresses his concern for Scabbers in Crookshanks presence), ..."And stop *worrying, Croookshanks will be sleeping in my dormitory and Scabbers in yours, what's the problem?" >From this point on, she makes no effort whatsoever to keep Crookshanks from attacking Scabbers and even *carries* him into Ron and Harry's dorm room on Christmas morning (CoS, chapter 11). She's being completely thoughtless and irresponsible in this instance. I've got 2 cats myself and have always been able to keep them in the house, and can confine them to a bedroom when necessary (allergic guests, workmen going in and out of the door, etc). She's not even trying. Me again: > > Her insensitivity to others can > >be breathtaking at times. Remember her response to the death of > >Lavenders rabbit? She consistently favors being right >over being kind. Laura again: > I'm sorry, but I flat-out disagree with this one. First of all, Lavender was being a little...well, silly, at this instance, and, if I do recall, Hermione was trying very hard to approach the topic delicately, while still point out that perhaps Prof. Trelawney may not be all-powerful -- which I would like to point out Lavender *needs* to know. It's not healthy, the way she and Pavarti view the old fraud. Frankly, I see it as dangerous. That kind of naivety and susceptibility to cons can only lead to pain and trouble. Sometimes it is necessary to be insensitive in order to help others in the long run. Aha! You *admit* she's insensitive ;--)! Who died and left Hermione in charge of telling everyone else how to respond to upsetting news? IIRC she approached Lavender; Lavender didn't request her input/advice. This is the crux of my problem with Hermione. She's always convinced she can run everyone else's life better than they can. It's a good thing Ron and Harry can put up with this and see her good qualities in spite of this, because it's easy to see why she hasn't got any other friends at this point. Laura sums up: > *sigh* I was going to list more, but I'm kind of getting sick of typing...^_~ anyway, of course Hermione isn't perfect, but I still think she's a pretty admirable person. I don't disagree that Hermione is really a good person at heart. However, she *still* has many of the faults she started out with, and if we're going to find fault with any of the other characters, then she has to take her lumps too. > Jo Serenadust From huntleyl at mssm.org Sat Mar 2 04:58:27 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 23:58:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione References: <3.0.1.32.20020301205902.00ab4650@pop.iglou.com> Message-ID: <006001c1c1a6$e456a4e0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 35952 mmm...this is me, defending Hermione from all attacks... Can't help it..I just like the girl. Shannon said: >Are there any instances mentioned where Ron and Hermione do >something together, that's not about helping Harry? As a mentioned (I think?), in a previous post, during GoF, when Harry and Ron were fighting, Harry specifically mentions that Hermione goes back and forth hanging out with the two of them (all the while trying to get them to forgive and forget). Plus, we've got to remember, we *are* restricted to Harry's POV, therefore, we see H/R alone/quality time and we see H/H alone/quality time, but, obviously, no R/Hr alone time cause Harry isn't there. ^_~ They do fight allot, though, that's true. But girls and boys their age generally are a little bit snappish with each other. *shrugs* Don't ask me. Natural phenomenon. Catherine in Cali said: >The cat is her responsibility. I don't think it was at all unreasonable of >Ron to ask her to keep her cat under control. For the smartest witch of >her grade, she shows an amazing stupidity in this case. The darn cat even >follows her into the boys' room. She makes little effort to do anything to >control the beast. Surely, the smartest witch of her grade should be able >to make up some kind of spell that would keep him in her room or perhaps >exclude him from the boys' side of the tower. eesh. I really have to stress the fact that Crookshanks is a *cat* here. In *allot* of fantasy books, cats are very often portrayed as being immune to magic, if not magical themselves -- this isn't just a coincidence. Cats are *really*...cat-ish...*at a loss for words*... *Any* attempt to make a cat do something/be somewhere it doesn't wish to be usually ends in disaster. I can't see how magic would help this at all. Anyway, supposing there was some way to control an animal in this way, don't you think Hermione would have employed it to help Neville out with the frequently MIA Trevor? She certainly tries to help him whenever she can. Shannon said: >As I recall, most of the incidents we see occur either in Ron's dorm, the >common room, or on the Hogwart's Express. It's not like he's carrying him >all over the school Actually "carrying him all over the school" is exactly what Ron does. When Crookshanks goes for Scabbers in the common room the rat is in Ron's backpack, which certainly suggests that Ron has taken him to class with him. Imagine keeping a live animal in a back pack. My books hardly make it out alive in mine. Ron must be *really* careful about swinging it up to his shoulder and setting it down and making sure Scabbers isn't crushed inside it. Definitely not the place for any rat, let alone a sick one. Also in PoA, there is a passage that goes like this: " A powerful and delicious smell of cooking pervaded the corridors, and by Christmas Eve, it had grown so strong that even Scabbers poked his nose out of the shelter of Ron's pocket to sniff hopefully at the air." This also suggests that Ron usually carries him around in his pocket, even once he is sick. (We *know* he does when the rat isn't sick) Hey, I guess it's better than a bookbag. However, Hermione *was* wrong to bring Crookshanks in on Christmas. I think at this point she is still stubbornly refusing to believe that Crookshanks is after Scabbers, and is trying to prove a point. However, after the incident, Hermione, although mad at Ron for kicking Crookshanks, *does* lock him up in her dormitory. Also, Crookshanks makes no attempts on Scabber's life on the Hogwarts Express, just BTW. And in yet another attempt to prove to you all that Hermione is not heartless and insensitive, I provide you with the following example: "Hermione flung her arms around Ron's neck and broke down completely. Ron, looking quite terrified, patted her very awkwardly on the top of the head. Finally, Hermione drew away. "Ron, I'm really, really sorry about Scabbers..." she sobbed. "Oh -- well -- he was old," said Ron, looking thoroughly relieved that she had let go of him. "And he was a bit useless. You never know, Mum and Dad might get me an owl now."" Not only does this show that Hermione *was* truly remorseful for "letting" Crookshanks "eat" Scabbers, Ron's reply leads me to believe that the whole fiasco was more about Hermione/Ron tension than anything else. Ron's biggest problem seemed to be that Hermione wouldn't admit Crookshanks ate Scabbers. In fact, right after Peter fakes his death again, Ron's attack on Hermione focuses on the fact that she wouldn't concede that Crookshanks was kitty-evil. And, frankly, Ron (while I don't doubt he *did* like Scabbers) is quite well..abusive of him. Always picking him up by the tail (excuse me, but isn't that like, the No. 1 rodent-care no-no?) and the like. Pretty careless with him as well -- and always insulting and complaining about him. I almost think that Peter *did* get punished for betraying the Potters. Imagine spending over a decade as the pet rat of a couple of young boys. Karma is like that. laura - "winning arguments by simply repeating her opinions over and over in a bull-headed and obnoxious way, until everyone is just too brow-beaten to argue anymore." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From goddessa80 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 2 01:36:47 2002 From: goddessa80 at yahoo.com (Adrienne) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 19:36:47 -0600 Subject: Fw: Percy Weasely and the rest of them Message-ID: <024a01c1c18a$d13f03a0$2301380a@evansville.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 35953 Hello! am a newbie lurker, who about to embark on spring break FINALLY managed to catch up with all the posts and felt she must join in on discussion of Percy and family... so here goes. Jo Serenadust writes >Yep, I did think of that, but a little daytime kissing in a >classroom pales in comparison with being out on the grounds with >Arthur until FOUR in the morning (Molly, you hussy!). Anyway, the >classroom smooching was probably Penelope's idea (You know how take- >charge girls named Penny tend to be . have to say that after all the discussions about Florence and smooching behind the greenhouse, I got the fit of giggles. What if the spot behind the greenhouse was the special Hogwarts make-out spot? We used to have near empty staircases in my school where you'd find couples liplocked in the mornings... and just the thought of Percy being found with grass stains on his robe, prefect badge askew and lipstick smears on his cheek gave me such a laugh. sorry Had to write that. Eileen writes: >Lastly, about Percy. I don't like my Percy angsty. He's not. He >laughs and smiles a good deal, even if he doesn't make many jokes. >Remember the Christmas Ball where his jollity makes Les Miserables >want to kill him. However, he does have problems. As many people have >pointed out, he's the isolated Weasley, the one always on his own. He >has no sibling of his own age. I very much agree.. I don't want Percy all angsty and nutty. He doesnt seem that way at all to me. I feel he is really the "middle child" of all the Weasleys. After all, Bill and Charlie were so terribley cool and brave and successfull-- and then the twins beneath him are so creative IMO (after all, takes a creative mind to think up all those nutty tricks) and nuts to boot. Ron obviously has the baby brother bit of it all, tagging along all the time-- he seems to look up to F&G a bit, at least I think so. Percy is stuck in the middle-- he probably felt more of the pressure to be perfect and successful, especially after B&C. Plus any pompousity or crazy no-rule breaking of his has to come from being the big bro of those blasted twins. As a big sister, I know for a fact that this plays in... I became a fanatic no-rule breaker because of my lil sister's propensity to color white walls with yellow crayon and cut the hem of our nannie's sari to pieces... for me though, it was because I began to look so good in comparison and got oodles more freedom when I was her age than she does now. Possibly Percy maybe going for this... after all he does get an owl of his own, and Percy really can't seem to do much wrong in Molly's eyes. And now for Molly's defense... Debbie writes >first, the >argument over the dress robes (has Molly really not figured out that >Ron hates maroon?), With seven kids... I'm not too surprised. Can you imagine keeping track of all the different favorite colors, favorite foods, favorite whatevers? argh my mind boggles.... My mom only has two kids and after 20 years she still forgets that I won't eat bologna, liverwurst or macaroni and cheese, and my sister under no circumstances will ever eat mushrooms. And my mom doesn't have too shady a memory either.. :) And a bit ago, there was discussion on Ron and his potentiality of going over to the dark side... my ickle Ronniekins? NEVER! Can't agree with that for my sanity... I think for a children's book it can't happen. After all what would JKR be telling kids about their best friends? That they betray you without meaning it? Yes, its obvious that Ron has his faults... ineptness with girls and jealousy for example... but I strongly disagree with the idea that he will somehow unwittingly help Voldie and hurt Harry. The conflicts between Ron and Harry have been ones mainly dealing with children's issues--- the stuff you very might likely get into a fight with your best friend about. However, they make up. I can't can't can't see Ron doing anything evil, knowingly or unknowingly. now off to enjoy my spring vacation at home in a blessedly warm bed with no microwaved food and NO ESSAYS DUE FOR A WEEK! Adie oh and I apolgize if I got the email references wrong... Tried to differentiate who wrote what.. but I do get a little confused at times. :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pacific_k at hotmail.com Sat Mar 2 05:48:18 2002 From: pacific_k at hotmail.com (pacificlippert) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 05:48:18 -0000 Subject: Hermione In-Reply-To: <006001c1c1a6$e456a4e0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35954 > laura - "winning arguments by simply repeating her opinions over and over in a bull-headed and obnoxious way, until everyone is just too brow-beaten to argue anymore." (sounding remarkably like my brother ) wrote: > And, frankly, Ron (while I don't doubt he *did* like Scabbers) is quite well..abusive of him. Always picking him up by the tail (excuse me, but isn't that like, the No. 1 rodent-care no-no?) and the like. Pretty careless with him as well -- and always insulting and complaining about him. I almost think that Peter *did* get punished for betraying the Potters. Imagine spending over a decade as the pet rat of a couple of young boys. Karma is like that. But are the things that damage "Muggle" rats the same things that damage magical rats? Skipping games (jump rope) played with tails seems to indicate that magical rats are...different . Wizarding pets as a whole seem much tougher and smarter than their non-magic counterparts. And as for insulting your possessions...well, in some cultures it's normal to downgrade what you own, a reverse bragging, so to speak. Also, Ron might not be doing anything his family doesn't do, and we just haven't seen much of it yet, although Fred and George do something similar with the sweaters. Pacific Back to lurkdom (: From PolgaraTheSorcess at hotmail.com Sat Mar 2 06:20:20 2002 From: PolgaraTheSorcess at hotmail.com (Polgara TheSorcess) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 01:20:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Cho Chang's Name Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35955 Hi all, newbie posting for the first time here after lurking for about a month. While I do read Chinese books with no trouble at all, I did read the HP books in US version, so I don't know how Cho's name was actually translated in the Chinese version of the books. With that said, here's a little specualtion of my own. The last name Chang is a common last name among the Chinese with no particular association on its own. The sound Cho is given to many Chinese characters, including some that do not acutally sound like "cho" but have no other closer sound in English. Just off the top of my head, the more common characters that I would think might be female names are: - autumn - ball, not very feminine, but she is on the Quidditch team - hard to translate, a word most often used to mean being good with one's hands at some feminine or artistic task, such as painting or embroidering, but often associated with having an intelligent mind as well - sadness, sorrow - vengence, not usually used as a name obviously, but if anyone want to spin a thread about how she becomes bend on vengence for Cedric's death... My personal favorite is the third one, but if anyone knows how the name was actually translated in the Chinese version that would settle the question rather effectively. Of course, we are assuming Rowling would know anything about Chinese characters. I used to think she just made it up myself, but it's always fun to speculate. Polgara >"There has been a lot of speculation about Cho Chang's name, much of it >based on the assumption that J.K. Rowling knows what Cho Chang means in >Chinese." > >My question is: does this imply that Cho Chang actually *has* some kind of >meaning in any sense? I always assumed it was pretty much a made up name >meant to convey to the reader that Cho is Chinese. > >laura _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From jferer at yahoo.com Sat Mar 2 09:26:41 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 09:26:41 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Parents, Muggle skepticism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35956 Anna:"Hagrid also doesn't give Muggles much credit when he notes that "everyone would be wanting magical solutions to their problems." Sure, a lot of people would, but how many others would be leery of it, like the Grangers? For that matter, what's keeping the whole of the Wizarding World from using magical solutions to THEIR problems?" Hagrid's right. We Muggles are always looking for the puppets controlling our lives. It would start out as wanting magical solutions to our problems. Next would be resentment about all the things wizards "could have" solved but didn't: 'why didn't they prevent September 11th? Why did they let my Uncle Zach die?" and so on. Finally there would be resentment born of jealousy and the widespread belief that wizards are running the world behind the scenes to suit themselves. As far as wizarding folks themselves, that opens up a really fascinating field for inquiry: What are the limits of magic? It can't be God-like omnipotence, or the world would stop making sense; actually, the world would probably stop existing. And wizards would have their own resentments. Stan Shunpike might think he could be great a wizard as Dumbledore if they'd only "let" him. It's human nature. Anna:"One movie reviewer described Rowling's "rage at the Muggle world" - I didn't notice it myself, but now that you've fleshed it out a bit, I see what you're both on to." People with imagination often resent those with none. I often heard how contemptuously SCA or SF fans referred to "mundanes." Anna:"I'm inclined to read it as a bit of racial-type tension in the Wizard World. Even when "inter-magical" couples exist, they either don't last Mr. & Mrs. Riddle) or there's some tension (Seamus Finnegan's parents). I'm on my second read-through now - just finished CoS - so I've probably missed something, but I don't recall anyone who has a name (besides Seamus) being half-blood." There's bound to be tension. Muggle-borns like Hermione can move in two worlds, while many "purebloods" would be lost in our world. Imagine the Trio in Muggle London. Harry and Hermione would be right at home, and Ron would be totally lost. A lot of wizard-borns wouldn't like it. [If I ran Hogwarts and wanted, like Dumbledore, to build bridges, I'd make everybody live as a Muggle two weeks out of each term.] The Muggle-borns would be strange. They probably wear the same clothes they wore before they came to Hogwarts, which makes them stand out; Dean Thomas might bring his soccer ball to school, etc. From catlady at wicca.net Sat Mar 2 09:45:39 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 09:45:39 -0000 Subject: Snape / Bowman Wright / Ron / Molly / Gred&Forge / Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35957 Dogberry wrote: > I belive part of Snape's problem is that no one really respects > him, no really looks up to him, It seems to me that McGonagall and the other permanent teachers respect him as a colleague and Dumbledore respects him as a fighter for the Good side, and I imagine that his Slytherins idolise him. Beth jillily3g wrote: > Bowman Wright ("a skilled metal-charmer"), who invented the Golden > Snitch, also lived in Godric's Hollow. It has been speculated (this is a long chain of what-ifs) that 1) James and Lily hid out in Godric's Hollow because it was the Potter ancestral village (but the famed 'additional scene' in the movie showed them living in a MUGGLE HOUSE in Godric's Hollow), 2) and therefore the Potters could be descended from someone who lived in Godric's Hollow 600 years earlier, and 3) so maybe the Potter fortune was inherited from Bowman Wright, and 4) and maybe Harry's excessive ability as Seeker was an inherited relationship to the Snitch that Bowman Wright had invented. (I used http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ to find a citation for the JKR quote: http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/October_2000_Live_Chat_Americ a_Online.htm says "Q:What did James and Lily Potter do when they were alive? A: 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.") Elkins wrote: > JKR, in spite of her apparent distaste for divination, nonetheless > seems to enjoy giving her characters apt sun signs (Hermione the > Virgo, Harry the Leo, Ron the Taurus, and so forth). Ron seems like an Taurus to me, but JKR stated that his birthday is March 1, which is Pisces. If it were March *31*, he would be an Aries, which I could believe: he has a temper. (http://www.comicrelief.com/harrysbooks/pages/transcript3.shtml "Q: When is Ron's Birthday? A: First of March, in case you're thinking of sending him a card and Hermione is the nineteenth of September.") Debbie elfundeb wrote: > I sense that in the Weasley family, the squeaky wheel gets the oil, > with the result that Percy draws attention to himself by his > accomplishments, the twins draw (negative) attention to themselves > through their mischief, and Ginny is a natural attention getter as > the youngest and only girl. Ron is lost in the chaos. Yes! There are certain things in Book 1 that troubled me the first time I read it and every time since. "She always forgets I don't like corned beef." "Swap you for one of these," said Harry, holding up a pasty. "Go on --" "You don't want this, it's all dry," said Ron. "She hasn't got much time," he added quickly, "you know, with five of us." Ron is very loyally making excuses for his mother but IMHO she needs excuses. It seems to me that JKR intends to portray Molly as a very lovable good person and her relationship with Ron as warm and loving, but she does these things that just seem like she doesn't care much about Ron, and like she doesn't do her homemaker job very well... She's only making *four* to-go lunches, even if they all have to be the same kind of sandwiches, even if they have to be whatever was on sale cheap or leftover whether or not the kids like it, how could she not have enough time to put an anti-dessication charm (or Saran Wrap Spell) on the sannies? > Debbie wrote: > the dress robes (has Molly really not figured out that Ron hates > maroon?), As for the dress robes, I feel confident that Ron would have rather had new and severely-styled maroon dress robes than quaint antique dress robes with lace in his choice of color. Molly *did* explain to Ron that she didn't have a lot of second-hand dress robes in his size to choose among, and she couldn't afford to buy new... we didn't hear about what kind of second-hand dress robes Percy, the twins, and Ginny ended up with... Adrienne goddessa replied to Debbie: > With seven kids... I'm not too surprised. Can you imagine keeping > track of all the different favorite colors, favorite foods, > favorite whatevers? Why not? I don't have children, but I can recite off the favorite colors of a long list of my friends, and remember who's allergic to mushrooms. Those kids are her JOB, she should know them as well as I know the databases of the system that I support at MY job. Leon adatole wrote: > Despite their reputation for being troublemakers, they have avoided > being expelled or even reprimanded (except from their mother). They haven't been expelled, but they have been caught by Filch on occasion, and I assume they were reprimanded and probably given detentions on those occasions. PoA: "Well... when we were in our first year, Harry -- young, carefree, and innocent --" Harry snorted. He doubted whether Fred and George had ever been innocent. "Well, more innocent than we are now -- we got into a spot of bother with Filch." "We let off a Dungbomb in the corridor and it upset him for some reason --" "So he hauled us off to his office and started threatening us with the usual -- detention, disembowelment, and we couldn't help noticing a drawer in one of his filing cabinets marked Confiscated and Highly Dangerous. "Don't tell me --" said Harry, starting to grin." CoS: "Harry had never been inside Filch's office before; it was a place most students avoided. The room was dingy and windowless, lit by a single oil lamp dangling from the low ceiling. A faint smell of fried fish lingered about the place. Wooden filing cabinets stood around the walls; from their labels, Harry could see that they contained details of every pupil Filch had ever punished. Fred and George Weasley had an entire drawer to themselves." From huntleyl at mssm.org Sat Mar 2 05:26:44 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 00:26:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione WAS percy/molly/hermione References: Message-ID: <000001c1c1dd$8118bda0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 35958 alright, here I go again...*sigh* stop me if I drive anyone to tears, alright? Jo Serendust: >Aha! You *admit* she's insensitive ;--)! ^_~ not really. In this case I believe Hermione was trying quite hard to tip-toe around Lavender's feelings, while still trying to point out the problem with the whole situation. Jo: >Who died and left Hermione in charge of telling everyone else how to >respond to upsetting news? IIRC she approached Lavender; Lavender >didn't request her input/advice. Lavender was sobbing in a public area. Generally, this is an (intentional or otherwise) invite for people to ask, "What's wrong" and sympathize. Lav also was obviously willing to discuss the matter as she was broadcasting to everyone around her that Prof. T. was right and she (Lav) should have known. Yah gotta take the good with the bad, you know? If she was crying in a secluded area and Hermione heard about what had happened and sought her out, that would have been an entirely different situation. Jo: >This is the crux of my problem >with Hermione. She's always convinced she can run everyone else's >life better than they can.It's a good thing Ron and Harry can put >up with this and see her good qualities in spite of this, because >it's easy to see why she hasn't got any other friends at this point. *splutters* No friends? What about Neville? What about Ginny (the two of them obviously confided in each other in GoF)?? What about Hagrid (the kids view him as a friend, not an adult)?? It's quite normal that a kid her age should have two very close friends..."best friends", if you will..(most kids only have one)..and then other, good friends, but not on the same level as the "best friend(s)". Furthermore, adults (w. the exception, of course, of Snape) seem to take well to Hermione, which, IMHO is an excellent mark of character in a kid. ^_^ A couple examples: McGonagall trusts her with the time-turner (I mean, imagine the trust she must have for this girl), Sirius sides with her when Ron and Harry ridicule her for her attitude towards Crouch, and Mad-Eye Moody/Crouch Jr. (either way, he should know what an Auror is like) suggests she should be an Auror. Plus, she is willing to give *anyone* the benefit of the doubt, even those who are rotten to her, such as Snape, which is a crucial part of forming and keeping friendships. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sat Mar 2 12:56:50 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 12:56:50 -0000 Subject: Hermione WAS percy/molly/hermione In-Reply-To: <000001c1c1dd$8118bda0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35959 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" wrote: > *splutters* No friends? What about Neville? This is actually one of the things I admire most about Hermione. Of all the kids in the school, she's the only one who's consistently compassionate, helpful, and totally non-judgemental toward Neville. In fact, the first time we see her, when she walks into Harry and Ron's compartment on the Hogwarts Express, she's helping Neville look for his toad. She helps him in Potions even when she knows it'll get her into trouble with Snape, and when he asks her to the Yule Ball (which in itself is a strong indicator that he considers her a friend), she turns him down nicely enough that he still has the confidence to go on and approach Ginny. I say, gimme Hermione for a best friend any day. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From SaturnVenus84 at msn.com Sat Mar 2 10:31:04 2002 From: SaturnVenus84 at msn.com (saturnvenus84) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 10:31:04 -0000 Subject: Cho Chang's Name In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35960 > My personal favorite is the third one, but if anyone knows how the name was > actually translated in the Chinese version that would settle the question > rather effectively. Zhang Qiu. That's the name used in China (mainland). Taken from: http://www.cjvlang.com/Hpotter/index.html "For 'Chang', both Mainland and Chinese translations choose the common Chinese surname Zhang1, often written 'Chang' by Taiwanese and overseas Chinese, who do not use the pin'yin romanisation. The given name 'Cho' has to be guessed at. The sound 'cho' doesn't occur in pin'yin, but could be equivalent to zhuo, chuo, chou, zhou, zhe, che, qiu or even jiu - take your pick! The problem is finding a nice-sounding, plausible character that would be suitable as a girl's name. The translators choose Qiu1, meaning 'autumn'." From adatole at yahoo.com Sat Mar 2 12:38:45 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (Leon Adato) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 04:38:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Neville visiting his parents Message-ID: <20020302123845.10653.qmail@web20502.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 35961 jklb66 said: I agree. It doesn't matter that they can't recognize him; they are still his parents and it isn't strange that he visits them occasionally. ********** On the one hand, there are the many people who visit their parents/grandparents who have alzheimers or other conditions that affect memory. Some visit daily, others less so. Neville's behavior is not at all strange or out of the ordinary. On the other hand, this seems like the kind of "world" where perhaps his visit, his face, his presence might spark something in them again some day. Make no mistake - I believe Neville is going to be a key character by the end of the series. While it seems inconsistant that Crouch (as Mad Eye) sparked a drive in Neville to achieve (exhibited by his reading under the sheets in GoF), the fact remains that Neville from that point forward is a question mark in the plot. He isn't just comic relief. Leon --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From adatole at yahoo.com Sat Mar 2 12:50:47 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (Leon Adato) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 04:50:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Snape Message-ID: <20020302125047.87190.qmail@web20514.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 35962 Dogberry wrote: > I belive part of Snape's problem is that no one really respects him, no really looks up to him, Catlady wrote: It seems to me that McGonagall and the other permanent teachers respect him as a colleague and Dumbledore respects him as a fighter for the Good side, and I imagine that his Slytherins idolise him. ******************* I am new here, so perhaps I've missed another sub-thread. But I honestly think that Snape has "enhanced" his opinions for the sake of the fight that is coming. Dumbledore is much more "aware" than he appears to many of his colleagues. Snape is perhaps one of the most perceptive wizards we have met. These people knew clearly that Voldemort, not dead, would be coming back. And that they would need someone on "the inside" when that time came to pass. No, I don't deny that he has deep seated grudges against the "old gang". But I believe that he has been purposefully making his resentments louder, in order to maintain the facade and be able to move back into the old crowd again. Just my humble opinion. Leon --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From srae1971 at iglou.com Sat Mar 2 15:02:43 2002 From: srae1971 at iglou.com (Shannon) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 10:02:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione In-Reply-To: <006001c1c1a6$e456a4e0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> References: <3.0.1.32.20020301205902.00ab4650@pop.iglou.com> Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020302100243.00a9b0d8@pop.iglou.com> No: HPFGUIDX 35963 At 11:58 PM 3/1/2002 -0500, Laura wrote: >mmm...this is me, defending Hermione from all attacks... >Can't help it..I just like the girl. I like her too! >Shannon said: >>Are there any instances mentioned where Ron and Hermione do >>something together, that's not about helping Harry? I didn't say that....not that it matters. Just thought I'd point that out. :) However, I did say... >Shannon said: >>As I recall, most of the incidents we see occur either in Ron's dorm, the >>common room, or on the Hogwart's Express. It's not like he's carrying him >>all over the school > >Actually "carrying him all over the school" is exactly what Ron does. When Crookshanks goes for Scabbers in the common room the rat is in Ron's backpack, which certainly suggests that Ron has taken him to class with him. Imagine keeping a live animal in a back pack. My books hardly make it out alive in mine. Ron must be *really* careful about swinging it up to his shoulder and setting it down and making sure Scabbers isn't crushed inside it. Definitely not the place for any rat, let alone a sick one. I'd forgotten those things. Scabbers is probably quite adept at keeping from being crushed by now, after all those years with Percy and now Ron...life in the Burrow has gotta be dangerous. :) At any rate, Ron probably figures it's safer to carry around a sick rat than it is to leave it in the dormitory, where Crookshanks is more likely to get at him. >However, Hermione *was* wrong to bring Crookshanks in on Christmas. I think at this point she is still stubbornly refusing to believe that Crookshanks is after Scabbers, and is trying to prove a point. However, after the incident, Hermione, although mad at Ron for kicking Crookshanks, *does* lock him up in her dormitory. > >Also, Crookshanks makes no attempts on Scabber's life on the Hogwarts Express, just BTW. Isn't there an incident when Hermione is undoing the clasps on the basket that she has Crookshanks in, and Ron protests that she's going to let him out when he's there with Crookshanks? I thought there was some sort of altercation then. Maybe not. I can't get easily at my copy of PoA to check. >And in yet another attempt to prove to you all that Hermione is not heartless and insensitive, I provide you with the following example: > >"Hermione flung her arms around Ron's neck and broke down completely. Ron, looking quite terrified, patted her very awkwardly on the top of the head. Finally, Hermione drew away. "Ron, I'm really, really sorry about Scabbers..." she sobbed. "Oh -- well -- he was old," said Ron, looking thoroughly relieved that she had let go of him. "And he was a bit useless. You never know, Mum and Dad might get me an owl now."" I certainly don't think Hermione is insensitive or heartless. At least, not in general. But she's surprisingly stubborn in the whole Crookshanks/Scabbers drama, even when all the evidence is against her. > Ron's biggest problem seemed to be that Hermione wouldn't admit Crookshanks ate Scabbers. In fact, right after Peter >fakes his death again, Ron's attack on Hermione focuses on the fact that she wouldn't concede that Crookshanks was >kitty-evil. Frankly that was my biggest problem with her during that period as well. After numerous instances of Crookshanks trying to get at Scabbers, she STILL simply will not admit that the probability is that her cat killed Ron's rat. We all know of course that's not what happened, but in any ordinary circumstance it probably would have been exactly what happened. >And, frankly, Ron (while I don't doubt he *did* like Scabbers) is quite well..abusive of him. Always picking him up > by the tail (excuse me, but isn't that like, the No. 1 rodent-care no-no?) and the like. Pretty careless with him as > well -- and always insulting and complaining about him. Well, that's just Ron being Ron. It would be out of character for him to be affectionate. We all know he did care about Scabbers, and he probably loves Pigwidgeon, too. Shannon From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Mar 2 15:07:31 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 15:07:31 -0000 Subject: Ron / Molly / Gred&Forge / In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35964 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > Debbie elfundeb wrote: > > > I sense that in the Weasley family, the squeaky wheel gets the oil, with the result that Percy draws attention to himself by his > > accomplishments, the twins draw (negative) attention to themselves through their mischief, and Ginny is a natural attention getter as > > the youngest and only girl. Ron is lost in the chaos. > > Yes! There are certain things in Book 1 that troubled me the first > time I read it and every time since. "She always forgets I don't > like corned beef." "Swap you for one of these," said Harry, holding > up a pasty. "Go on --" "You don't want this, it's all dry," said Ron. > "She hasn't got much time," he added quickly, "you know, with five of > us." Ron is very loyally making excuses for his mother but IMHO she > needs excuses. It seems to me that JKR intends to portray Molly as a very lovable good person and her relationship with Ron as warm and loving, but she does these things that just seem like she doesn't care much about Ron, and like she doesn't do her homemaker job very well... She's only making *four* to-go lunches, even if they all have to be the same kind of sandwiches, even if they have to be whatever was on sale cheap or leftover whether or not the kids like it, how could she not have enough time to put an anti-dessication charm (or > Saran Wrap Spell) on the sannies? > > > Debbie wrote: > > the dress robes (has Molly really not figured out that Ron hates maroon?), > : > > > With seven kids... I'm not too surprised. Can you imagine keeping track of all the different favorite colors, favorite foods, > > favorite whatevers? > > Why not? I don't have children, but I can recite off the favorite > colors of a long list of my friends, and remember who's allergic to mushrooms. Those kids are her JOB, she should know them as well as I know the databases of the system that I support at MY job. > Your databases do not lock themselves in a room at night and think of ways to drive you crazy (at least I hope not). Whereas any pair of kids who have an entire drawer to themselves in Filch's cabinet probably also take up an extraordinary amount of their mother's time as well. I'd always figured the sandwiches were dry because the someone had eaten or used up the last of the butter, and Molly didn't have time to get more. (I know, butter and corned beef, yuck, but that's Britain, in my experience.) As for dessication spells, well if I'd picked up a fake wand, or the kids had hidden mine, or done some other prank while I was trying to get five children ready for the train, well I might figure that dry sandwiches are just what they deserve. The maroon dress robe was probably such a bargain (such beautiful fabric!) that Molly couldn't see past the low price. Or JKR may have been wishing on Ron the problem girls have if they are tall and fourteen, finding formal wear that is suitable for someone who is beneath the age of consent, to put it quaintly. Besides, Molly probably thinks Ron looks darling in maroon (it shows off your Weasley hair!), and gets maroon stuff for him because she thinks it's his color and it makes the laundry easier to sort. Pippin From Whirdy at aol.com Sat Mar 2 16:13:22 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:13:22 EST Subject: The Riddle House Riddles Message-ID: <120.c2e8d05.29b25422@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 35965 How did the Riddle House end up in the hands of strangers following the events described in GoF? What did the solicitors know and when did they know it? Perhaps Tom, Jr. filed a claim on the property as the only living heir -- even wizards know a good investment when they see one -- and it was adjudicated and rejected. That would certainly deepen his resentment of Muggles. By the way, who told him about the relationship between his mother and father? Riddle says his mother lived just long enough to name him and his father sent her away because she was a witch, before he was born. How, exactly, does he know he is a "half-blood. Muggle father, witch mother"? How did Riddle end up at Hogwarts? If the history of HP were any indication, then his name would have been entered right from the start. Or does the Hogwarts Admissions Office keep track of every "magical" person from birth, since it does not seem that everyone is invited to attend Hogwarts. Was it perhaps an Arthur Weasley-type bureaucrat, whose motto, as we know, is "He's got to know!" Finally, since magical places are protected from prying Muggle eyes by simple enchantments, why wasn't the Riddle House protected by Wormtail from notice by Frank Bryce? This leads to another thread in the Pensieve - why are the Magicals so fearful of the Muggles? Most Muggles are like the Dursleys; they simply ignore what they consider "abnormal." Simple or difficult spells seem to provide excellent control - as we find out, even burning really didn't bother a true Magical. The DE's killed Muggles and others at will. whirdy From moongirlk at yahoo.com Sat Mar 2 17:24:08 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 17:24:08 -0000 Subject: Faith and Edge (was Neville and the Bangers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35966 Cindy conspired: > > Now that Kimberly and her Faith, *they're* definitely squeamish. > > Something needs to be done about them, don't ya think? > Elkins replied with a sigh: > Faith lacks Edge. She definitely lacks Edge. But I'm afraid that > she *does* have the author on her side, so she probably outranks us. Wait! Faith doesn't lack Edge! Honest! She's a little squeamish about torturing children, sure, but she's got Edge. In fact, she's a tiny bit sadistic herself. You should have seen the twisted smile she was wearing when she was picking on the Memory Charms and stuff. And right now she's smiling twistedly again because she just told me that she suspects the whole reason I want to buy into a theory or two is because I'm a wimp, and that if we all had any real Edge, we'd be able to bask lazily in the glow of suspense instead of running around like busy bees trying to fill in all the gaps. Of course I told her she's wrong, that we like Edge, and Cindy captains the Big Bang destroyer. I told her about all of Elkins' clandestine missions and everything, and she just shook her head and smiled. Twistedly. Apparently Faith loves suspense. She loves the pins and needles of waiting for new Bangs; she's the little voice in the back of my head that wants JKR to take her time. She wants to draw it all out as long as possible so she can wallow in suspense. "Relax," she keeps saying from the recliner in my spare room, "JKR will tell us when the time comes, and then after, when she's done telling us all she's got to tell, anything she leaves out is *ours* to toy with at our leisure." She makes a big distinction between Edge and Bangs. She says the truly Edgy are a Bang in a Bottle themselves, so they don't need any added Bangs (the ones that are already there are plenty, and they know there are always more to come). The Edgiest, according to Faith, prefer the slow burn to flash-fires. She even quoted Snape at me - said I probably couldn't understand the beauty of the softly simmering character. Faith's got Edge. She's got Edge *and* canon, and now that she's gotten out of my head, she's getting a little pushy about it. kimberly wondering if Marina would be willing to trade George for Faith for the weekend. From k_wayment at hotmail.com Sat Mar 2 18:05:07 2002 From: k_wayment at hotmail.com (Kyli Wayment) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 18:05:07 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Riddle House Riddles Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35967 Whirdy wrote: >By the way, who told him about the relationship between his mother >and >father? Riddle says his mother lived just long enough to name >him and his >father sent her away because she was a witch, before he >was born. >How,exactly, does he know he is a "half-blood. Muggle >father, witch >mother"? What I would like to know is why Voldie's so picky about blood lines if he's half-Muggle. I sort of a theory that he hated Muggles because his Muggle father left his witch mother to die, adn he was bitter about it, saying all muggles were a nuisance unto the world. Who knows why? That;s just what I came up with. Thoughts? Ideas? ~Kyli _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From oppen at cnsinternet.com Sat Mar 2 18:13:40 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:13:40 -0600 Subject: Hermione, Ron and Scabbers Message-ID: <00c201c1c215$fc09ffa0$d1c71bce@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 35968 Personally, I think that Hermione knew after Scabbers' disappearance and alleged death that she _should_ have done more to keep her pet under control, which was why she was so shirty with Ron---she's proud, and doesn't like admitting that she was in the wrong. Add in normal teenage-girl troubles (a lot of which Harry wouldn't be personally aware of; she'd probably rather die than let on to him about that sort of thing, and we are not privy to her conversations with her roomies) and her killing work schedule, and her behavior becomes understandable, if not entirely excusable. Buying a _cat_ when one of your two best pals has a rat that he's had for years, and not taking precautions to make sure that your pet doesn't come into contact with his pet, is a bit...un-Hermione-ish. Could her purchase have been meant to be, for some reason? I don't have a copy of _Fantastic Beasts,_ and can't remember how magical Kneazles are, but her buying Crookshanks after he'd been in the petstore for so long does strike me as slightly fishy, somehow. At the same time, Ron should have taken precautions of his own to protect _his_ pet...maybe gotten some sort of anti-cat charm on the boys' room, to keep Crookshanks out. I'm sure there are a lot of charms and spells we don't know about, simply because if we learned about _every_ spell, charm, and potion they learn about, the books would be five times as long and read like a Hogwarts syllabus. But he apparently didn't, and didn't like admitting that _he'd_ been partly in the wrong. As for Ron's "ineptitude with girls," hey, give the kid a break! He's fifteen years old or so at the end of GoF, and AFAWK about the _only_ girl he's had much to do with outside of Hogwarts was...his little sister, Ginny! As my mom would have said, these skills do _not_ automatically appear when you hit a certain age. It happens that teenage girls are usually several years or so ahead of their male contemporaries in things like social skills, and I think that Ron and Harry acted perfectly in-character for boys their age at the Yule Ball. Me, at that age, I'd probably have conveniently become half-ill-unto-death the night of the Ball, since I was prouder than Lucifer and didn't trust _any_ girl I knew to keep it between us if I asked her and she said "no." I never went to dances or the prom when I was in American high school...when I was there, no money and no car meant no status and no girlfriend. Since I saw the prom as a "girl thing" anyway, this was no big loss. I have to agree with the poster who criticized Molly Weasley for forgetting that Ron doesn't like corned-beef. My own mom ran a nursery school for thirteen years, and could rattle off details about every kid in a given class. Molly's admittedly very busy, but she _should_ remember that Ron is just as much her son as the twins, Percy, or Bill, even if she has to make a family joke out of it---"right, let's have a look at the ol' Rolodex---marvelous things, these Muggle inventions." Come to it---if money was getting very stretched around their home when Ron went off to school, why didn't she suggest to Charlie or Bill that getting Ron his wand and some robes for Hogwarts would be a wonderful Christmas present? From what little we've seen of those guys, they'd have been happy to help, and poor Ron wouldn't have had to go through his first two years of school with a malfunctioning wand. It's not like wands cost the earth---five to ten Galleons, or so. I can easily understand Ron feeling like the last-and-least in his family. From greyshi at yahoo.com Sat Mar 2 18:20:42 2002 From: greyshi at yahoo.com (greyshi) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 18:20:42 -0000 Subject: Cho Chang's Name In-Reply-To: <004901c1c19c$b28c90a0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35969 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" wrote: > My question is: does this imply that Cho Chang actually *has* some kind of meaning in any sense? I always assumed it was pretty much a made up name meant to convey to the reader that Cho is Chinese. > > hmm..any information on this would be helpful/interesting... I was the one who mentioned the website. As a Chinese speaker with familiarity of two different Chinese dialects and other East Asian dialects, I never thought that Cho was Chinese. You'd really have to do some creative spelling and discount pronunciation to get "Cho" out of Mandarin or Cantonese. Cantonese being the likely Chinese language since (due to Hong Kong) that's the type of Chinese group that would most likely be in England. Based on the name alone and no other clues I thought Cho was Korean. Chang is a Korean last name as well and Cho is a Korean name. Since Korean names are based off of Chinese names from when they were under Chinese control, it would be very easy to come up with a version of it for the books. (Just because they were once Chinese based doesn't mean a Chinese person would understand them or their meaning anymore than we would know that someone named Ranathal is the same as Ronald today.) If JKR meant for Cho to be Chinese, then she screwed up and mixed up distinct separate cultures. Which would be disappointing since she's been so careful about everthing else. So I prefer to think that she knows full well that Cho is Korean. Greyshi From sandirs at hotmail.com Sat Mar 2 18:56:25 2002 From: sandirs at hotmail.com (Sandi Steinberg) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 13:56:25 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Was Percy! now Percy/Molly/Hermione Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35970 Like Laura Huntley, I "(also) happen to love Molly." She's the witch equivalent of a true earthmother...always room for one more at her table and in her heart. >Penny wrote: >I do dislike the way she interacts with her children in some ways. >With Bill, she seems fond but a bit meddlesome; with Charlie ... hmmm, >no real opinion here; with Percy, she is fond & doting to the point >of fairly obvious favoritism; with the Twins, she is definitely >bossy, interfering & unappreciative of their strengths & ambitions; with >Ron, she seems to be largely uninvolved or "absent" (she pays *far* >more attention to Harry than to Ron, and someone wrote a really nice >analysis some point back about how Molly's favoring Harry over her own son >Ron might cause problems in the Harry/Ron ...... To this I add: any parent knows his/her child's strengths and weaknesses. Who is independent, industrious, lazy, michievous, etc. and who needs to be pushed. Bragging about your kids is not just British; it's universal! I call it one-upmomship and the mothers of daughters do it even more, in my experience than the mothers of sons. Nevertheless, Bill and Percy have given Molly a lot of Mom-bragging rights, both having been prefects and head boys. It seems neither has given their parents a true moment of worry. Ron does seem shortchanged. I'm not certain why. It doesn't seem too much for her to pay him a bit more attention. I get the feeling that he has also never spoken up about the endless maroon Christmas sweaters. He just sighs and grouses a bit. I think the kid needs to make a suggestion that next year's sweater be blue or green, cuz' he has sooo many maroons and he needs more colors in his wardrobe. I don't see Molly being distressed by that. The baby is always overprotected in large families and is frequently spoiled and not held to account. Such people often grow up expecting to be forgiven all and "covered for" in adulthood. (Think: Sen. Ted Kennedy) I don't see any of that in Ginnie, thankfully. She's just a feminine little girl trying to grow up in a male-dominant household. If Molly holds her close, I suspect it's because she was probably delighted to have a little witch of her own after 6 wizards. Harry brings out the total loving mom in her. As Arthur's wife, she undoubtedly know more about his abusive, loveless childhood. Certainly that fact that he's an orpha--and orphaned so young and violently--makes her want to smother him with affection and nourishment whenever he's in her home. Arthur too, is always patient with Harry and Hermione as well, in explaining the wizardly world and its history. I see them as exceptionally warm and hospitable. Very generous and warm. (And a direct contrast to that other old wizardly family, the Malfoys.) As to the twins: I agree with those who have pointed out that they are the ones who need the strong guiding hand. I believe a 2x4 was suggested. Since Arthur is a bureacrat in the MoM, I think Molly is guilty here of wanting the boys to follow in some sort of bureacratic/professional mold and not broadening her vistas. In this regard, she's like most parents who seek security for their kids and aim them toward traditionally "safe" careers. The twins however, are very good at what they do and show a lot of promise IMHO, for their chosen career. They execute their magical pranks alone from drawing board/design phase to production and sales, and these creations are really hysterically funny and popular with their target audience: the Hogwartys. (Ten-tongue toffee, anyone?) It's time for Molly to begin to face that G and F are bright and entrepreneurial, not scholarly or bureaucratic. I do think, however, that they might be good at cursebreaking, like Bill. They need a good, active challenge. I hope we see more of Charley. I think he's cool. I've always loved dragons, hate that the rotten kid is named DRACO, and would love to know more about Charley's research in Rumania. As to the unmentioned relationship--that of Molly and Arthur. They obvioiusly adore each other. In GoF, Arthur immediately thinks to notify his wife so that she won't be worried should she hear about the Death Eaters sign before the family returns to the Hollow. And Molly gets a bit girlish and nostalgic in the same volume, remembering their Hogwarts courtship. Sandi _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From sandirs at hotmail.com Sat Mar 2 19:02:00 2002 From: sandirs at hotmail.com (Sandi Steinberg) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 14:02:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione WAS percy/molly/hermione Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35971 I agree with Marina, who pointed out that Hermione has a gift for friendship, and compassion: >This is actually one of the things I admire most about Hermione. Of >all the kids in the school, she's the only one who's consistently >compassionate, helpful, and totally non-judgemental toward Neville. >In fact, the first time we see her, when she walks into Harry and >Ron's compartment on the Hogwarts Express, she's helping Neville >look for his toad. She helps him in Potions even when she knows >it'll get her into trouble with Snape, and when he asks her to the >Yule Ball (which in itself is a strong indicator that he considers >her a friend), she turns him down nicely enough that he still has >the confidence to go on and approach Ginny. Hermione is always at her gentlest with those who are weakest or need to know something: Neville and in filling in Mr. Weasley about the Muggle world in an authoritative but respectful way. She would make a great teacher! Sandi > >> _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From moongirlk at yahoo.com Sat Mar 2 19:17:41 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 19:17:41 -0000 Subject: The Big Bangers and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35972 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Kimberly (that's me!) wrote: > > > When I think of > > Neville's backstory I get all misty-eyed and impressed. To me > it's > > tragic and terrifying and... something else that starts with a T. Cindy questioned: > Uh, oh. I need some help here. Does the third T stand for "True"? > What exactly are you trying to say there, Kimberly? ;-) Oh cool! I came off as being dodgy and mysterious when really I just couldn't think of another T word and felt the need for three to make the alliteration worthwhile. Yay! > Kimberly again: > > > So then, did you *like* my insane backstory? Cindy: > Oh, not to worry. I love Faith. She's pure, she's thoughtful, > she's well-groomed, she's the girl-next-door, she probably wears > plaid skirts and tights. She's disciplined enough not to stray from > canon *at all* -- what's not to like? Oh no - see, you don't have to pretend to like Faith, that's ok (although she is Tough, in her way - her tights are really stockings and her maryjanes have 4-inch heels). What I really meant was I was worried that you didn't appreciate all the effort I put into the *insane* backstory I came up with for Harry *and* Neville wherein Neville's the real threat to Voldemort because he's James' real son, and Harry's the love-child of Snape and Lily. Remember? Remember how it Banged and whistled and did all sorts of Big things? I thought you'd like it... > I'll let Faith in on a little secret (Faith is probably very good at > keeping secrets). It's *tremendously* important to me that Neville > have a Bangy backstory, see. Neville isn't Edgy. Or Tough (no, > standing up to his friends and enduring a full-body bind does not > count). Or Funny. Or Competent at the Big magical arts. Or good > under pressure. There's not a whole lot to admire there, for me > anyway. He's kind of just vulnerable and rather weak at the moment, > IMHO. See, that's the *beauty* of Faith's Neville. He *is* vulnerable and rather weak at the moment (although Faith points out that he's not *too* weak. He's braver with girls than Harry and Ron and he's got a little of Frank Bryce's steel to him - keep on plugging even if life isn't all it's cracked up to be and nobody's got your back). > For the first three books, I wrote Neville off as someone to read > past to, uh, get to Lupin. But now, JKR has suggested that there's > something going on with Neville. If she leaves the backstory > exactly where it is now, that is, exactly as Faith has it, well, it > might not be enough to rehabilitate Neville in my eyes. You're looking for all the Bangs in the backstory, but Faith is hanging back, relaxing by the pool and resting up for the really BIG Bangs. Because isn't it Bangier if Neville manages to do something great and fantastic *despite* all of his feelings of fear and inadequacy? Despite the clumsiness and the forgetfulness and the cute little pudginess? When a real underdog saves the day, you get a big, solid Bang. And don't forget, Faith finds it perfectly possible that Neville *remembers* the torture of his parents, which allows for a lot of stuff you like - like the big revelation scene where he tells Harry all about it. So you see, you get Bangs, plus you get to see Neville *becoming* Tough. Being Tough is great and all, but Becoming Tough is even Tougher, I think. kimberly glad I'm not the only one afraid of Sissy Spacek From Ali at zymurgy.org Sat Mar 2 20:05:03 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 20:05:03 -0000 Subject: Neville's future was Re: Neville visiting his parents In-Reply-To: <20020302123845.10653.qmail@web20502.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35973 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Leon Adato wrote: > Make no mistake - I believe Neville is going to be a key character by the end of the series. While it seems inconsistant that Crouch (as Mad Eye) sparked a drive in Neville to achieve (exhibited by his reading under the sheets in GoF), > > the fact remains that Neville from that point forward is a question mark in the plot. He isn't just comic relief. > > Leon I agree. I can't help wondering whether Harry will turn to Neville more in the next books. He now knows Neville's background, and might feel able to talk to him about the Cruciatus Curse in a way that he wouldn't with Hermione or Ron - simply because they have no experience of it. (Neville has whether or not he saw his parents being subjected to the curse or was himself cursed - he's had to live with the effects of the curse: ie insane parents). The idea of Harry turning more to Neville also fits in if Hermione and Ron do get together. I don't think this means that Harry will be excluded, but it would change the dynamics. (No, I'm not suggesting a permanent H/R Ship here, but there does seem to be some unresolved tension between H/R, which I believe will be explored). Oops, I've got into controversial waters without meaning to. It's time for me to re-lurk. Ali --------------------------------- > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From huntleyl at mssm.org Sat Mar 2 20:38:38 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 15:38:38 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Molly/Scabbers/Cho's Name References: <00c201c1c215$fc09ffa0$d1c71bce@hppav> Message-ID: <003f01c1c22a$3b7dce00$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 35974 Eric Oppen said: >I have to agree with the poster who criticized Molly Weasley for forgetting >that Ron doesn't like corned-beef. My own mom ran a nursery school for >thirteen years, and could rattle off details about every kid in a given >class. Still, that's just how your mom's memory works. My own has *never* seemed able to remember that I have despised tuna-fish sandwiches with a passion ever since I first laid eyes on them. Yet she still makes them. It's like she stockpiles those Chicken of The Sea cans especially for when I'm home. It's almost as if she secretly hopes that if she offers them to me often enough, one day I'll just capitulate and try them. It's the same with pecans. She's always sending them to me. I end up giving them out to random people in my wing. However, my mother is not neglectful, nor does she even have that many kids (only 3 of us). It's just her memory doesn't catch those kind of things. Personally, I think it's pretty funny, although a little irritating. Myself, I can remember the most obscure facts about a subject I have briefly encountered, yet I couldn't tell you either of my parent's birthdays. It's not that I don't *care*. It's just that my mind is not adept at storing that type of information. I think it's probably the same with Molly. Catlady said: >She's only making *four* to-go lunches, even if they all have >to be the same kind of sandwiches, even if they have to be whatever >was on sale cheap or leftover whether or not the kids like it, how >could she not have enough time to put an anti-dessication charm (or >Saran Wrap Spell) on the sannies? Heh, if the Weasley's house is anything like mine (and I really think it is), Molly is doing *allot* more than making sandwiches. I shudder to think what my mother would get like in a similar circumstance *ducks*. Anyway, I don't think the sandwiches were dry because she didn't wrap them properly, just because corned beef sandwiches generally *are* dry -- unless you put butter or something on them *makes a face*. Pacific said: >But are the things that damage "Muggle" rats the same things that >damage magical rats? Skipping games (jump rope) played with tails >seems to indicate that magical rats are...different . Wizarding >pets as a whole seem much tougher and smarter than their non-magic >counterparts. Yes, but even Harry thinks that Scabbers (unless he is hiding some sort of magical power) is probably getting old and nearing the end of his life. It's specifically stated that S. has never showed himself to be anything other than a normal rat. Greyshi Said: >Based on the name alone and no other clues >I thought Cho was Korean. Chang is a Korean last name as well and Cho >is a Korean name. Okay, so is their any associated meaning to "Cho" or "Chang" in Korean?? (*flinches* there probably is no language called Korean is there? Please excuse my ignorance, you know what I mean -- whatever language they speak there) Perhaps not a direct meaning (The way the name Petunia means a certain type of flower), but maybe a indirect meaning, they way my own name means something like "crowned victoriously in laurel" referring to a pre-medieval custom, or the name Smith means blacksmith and the name Granger means (I think?) a farmer. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From uncmark at yahoo.com Sat Mar 2 20:49:52 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 20:49:52 -0000 Subject: Cho Chang's Name In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35975 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "saturnvenus84" wrote: > > My personal favorite is the third one, but if anyone knows how the > name was > > actually translated in the Chinese version that would settle the > question > > rather effectively. > > Zhang Qiu. That's the name used in China (mainland). Taken from: > http://www.cjvlang.com/Hpotter/index.html > > "For 'Chang', both Mainland and Chinese translations choose the > common Chinese surname Zhang1, often written 'Chang' by Taiwanese and > overseas Chinese, who do not use the pin'yin romanisation. > > The given name 'Cho' has to be guessed at. The sound 'cho' doesn't > occur in pin'yin, but could be equivalent to zhuo, chuo, chou, zhou, > zhe, che, qiu or even jiu - take your pick! The problem is finding a > nice-sounding, plausible character that would be suitable as a girl's > name. The translators choose Qiu1, meaning 'autumn'." It's not disclosed where Cho is from. Is she an native-born English citizen whose family had immigrated several generations before or just her parents? Might she have been born in China (or some undisclosed Asian country. China was not mentioned in the books.) There is no mention in the Harry Potter Lexicon of birthplace or specific ethnicity, merely "born in 1979". 'Cho' might be an anglicized nickname for a much longer given name, I know my sister, born in Germany, was named 'Angelina Maria Anna' after several aunts, but went by Nina growing up. An interesting twist for future books might be the introduction of foreign wizards and have Cho related to some from the orient. Uncmark From pen at pensnest.co.uk Sat Mar 2 10:44:43 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:44:43 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione WAS percy/molly/hermione In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20020301205902.00ab4650@pop.iglou.com> References: <003301c1c179$6a420640$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35976 Shannon wrote: >Well, no. Then again, owls are not supposed to deliver the mail and >pictures aren't supposed to challenge you to duels, are they? :) And >having known a cat or two in my time, it wouldn't surprise me at all to >think that a cat had it in for a particular creature or person. :) >Seriously, Hermione has been going to a wizard school for two years at this >point. Crookshanks was purchased at a wizarding pet shop. She's seen plenty >of strange things, and if she can't even begin to consider something out of >the ordinary, then she's not taking her lessons very well. Add to that the >fact that Crookshanks positively lunges at Scabbers at every opportunity, >while there's no mention of him ever even sniffing at other animals. Yes, >it would unwise of a cat to attack an owl, but he doesn't even seem to >notice any other animal. If it were just a cat being a cat, poor Trevor >would have been lunch long before they reached Hogwarts. Hermione is smart >enough to see this, if she was willing. But IMO that's not the worst of it. >The worst of it is, she doesn't even seem to be bothered by Crookshanks' >repeated attacks on Scabbers...she just gets made at Ron for being upset. It has just occurred to me to wonder whethe Crookshanks has some kind of magical effect on Hermione. She fell for him in the pet show, although from the description he is not a particularly prepossessing beast. She treats him with great indulgence - not unreasonable for someone who, perhaps, has never had a pet before, but maybe there is a little more to it than that. We know that Crookshanks is not 'just' a cat, but is in part a magical creature. So is it possible he influences Hermione just enough to amplify her affection for him and discount her normal common sense? Pen From catlady at wicca.net Sat Mar 2 21:16:15 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 21:16:15 -0000 Subject: Hermione/Crookshanks / Molly/Ron / Tom Riddle/his parents / Cho's Name Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35977 NOTE: First, a note: Last night I quoted: "Harry could see that they contained details of every pupil Filch had ever punished. Fred and George Weasley had an entire drawer to themselves." I should have realised then that if it were EVERY student Filch had punished, James Potter and Sirius Black should ALSO have an entire drawer to themselves, and Harry would have been interested if he had seen the name James Potter. HERMIONE/CROOKSHANKS: Marina Rusalka wrote: > This is actually one of the things I admire most about Hermione. Of > all the kids in the school, she's the only one who's consistently > compassionate, helpful, and totally non-judgemental toward Neville. Shannon wrote: > I certainly don't think Hermione is insensitive or heartless. At > least, not in general. But she's surprisingly stubborn in the whole > Crookshanks/Scabbers drama, even when all the evidence is against > her. (snip) Frankly that was my biggest problem with her during > that period as well. After numerous instances of Crookshanks trying > to get at Scabbers, she STILL simply will not admit that the > probability is that her cat killed Ron's rat. We all know of course > that's not what happened, but in any ordinary circumstance it > probably would have been exactly what happened. Eric wrote: > Buying a _cat_ when one of your two best pals has a rat that he's > had for years, and not taking precautions to make sure that your > pet doesn't come into contact with his pet, is a bit ... > unHermione-ish. Could her purchase have been meant to be, for some > reason? I don't have a copy of _Fantastic Beasts,_ and can't > remember how magical Kneazles are, but her buying Crookshanks after > he'd been in the petstore for so long does strike me as slightly > fishy, somehow. I agree with all three of the above quotes. As someone who has lived with cats since my mum's dear old Foggy slept in my crib while I was getting ready to be born, it is second nature to me to protect rat, parakeet, and snake pets from the cat family members, and that is not assuming any malice on the part of the cats, just curiosity, playfulness, and instinct. (Someone who loves to pounce on string could mistake a snake for an automated string!) (Btw, Foggy lived to almost 21 and died while I was in high school.) Hermione went into the Pet Shop to buy an owl, so she could send mail without borrowing Hedwig or a school owl, and abruptly changed her plan when Crookshanks jumped up. "Poor Crookshanks, that witch said he'd been in there for ages; no one wanted him." I thought she fell for him due to that compassion that Marina and Sandi mentioned, her sympathy for underdogs like Neville AND the House Elves. (By the way, "Marina and Sandi" sounds like a very Potterverse name for a pop music group consisting of two beautiful mermaids.) However, it could be that some characters, not just the Author, meant to provide Harry (via Hermione) with a useful half-Kneazle. Then Hermione's uncharacteristic refusal to acknowledge what both book learning and experience say about cat nature could be explained by whatever love-at-first-sight Charm had caused her to fall so much in love with Crookshanks that she forgot about owls. I guess the pet shop witch would have been in on this conspiracy and cast the Love Charm... Mrs Figg would have provided the half-Kneazle... did Dumbledore orchestrate the the plot, or was it cooked up between Mrs Figg and the pet shop witch... is the pet shop witch Mrs Figg's sister? Shoot, PEN ROBINSON posted that while I was typing this! I think I read a fanfic that had Crookshanks being James & Lily's cat who was put in the pet shop after being found alive in the same wreckage as baby Harry, who recognized Scabbers by smell as the (human) wizard who had accompanied Voldemort to the murder, and recognized Harry by smell as a member of his (Crookshanks's) *real* human family, and therefore jumped in to protect his human from the villain. That theory does not explain why Hermione fell in love with him (FB doesn't say Kneazles can cast Love Spells) -- if Mrs Pet Shop had told Hermione that Crookshanks was James and Lily's cat, Hermione would have told Harry; also Sirius would have mentioned it when he said that Crookshanks was exceptionally intelligent. MOLLY/RON: Pippin wrote: > Besides, Molly probably thinks Ron looks darling in maroon (it > shows off your Weasley hair!), and gets maroon stuff for him > because she thinks it's his color and it makes the laundry easier > to sort. At first I thought that Molly color-coded the Christmas sweaters, so she'd know whose sweater it was by the color, so Ron was stuck with maroon because all the other colors were already taken (except girly pink, which must have gone to Ginny, which probably clashes with her hair as much as Cannons orange does with Ron's, and which she probably hates, too). But my first problem with that theory is that emerald green wasn't already taken, because she used it for Harry's sweater, and my second problem was that color-coding doesn't work in a house of hand-me-downs -- if Ron's baby and infant clothes (the ones they outgrow so fast) had formerly been Bill's and Percy's, they wouldn't have been Ron's maroon. So I fall back on the poverty theory and assume that Molly makes the sweaters out of whatever color of yarn was on close-out sale cheap, and therefore likely to be hideous colors that NO ONE wanted to buy, and he should be glad it was maroon instead of goose-shit green or baby-puke yellow. TOM RIDDLE/HIS PARENTS: Whirdy wrote: > By the way, who told him about the relationship between his mother > and father? Riddle says his mother lived just long enough to name > him and his father sent her away because she was a witch, before he > was born. How, exactly, does he know he is a "half-blood. Muggle > father, witch mother"? In response, Kyli wrote: > I thought of a theory that he hated Muggles because his Muggle > father left his witch mother to die, and he was bitter about it, > saying all muggles were a nuisance unto the world. Canon suggests that Tom Jr was told his backstory by the orphanage people. CoS says: ""My mother died just after I was born, sir. They told me at the orphanage she lived just long enough to name me - Tom after my father, Marvolo after my grandfather." The orphanage people would have been told by whoever brought newborn Tom Jr to the orphanage: maybe it was hospital people, if Tom's mother had been taken to (Muggle OR wizarding) hospital when her labor went wrong; she could have told some sympathetic hospital person about the baby's father before the baby came out. It does, however, seem unlikely that Muggle orphanage people would tell their charge that his mother was a witch and he was half-wizard. I prefer to believe that Tom Jr's mother had returned to her parents and that is where he was born and she died, and of course her parents knew her story. I like to think his grandparents raised him to the age of three or four (old enough to remember what they told him about his parentage) before they died. (I believe that Tom Jr was not above lying to Headmaster Dippet about who told him about his mother's death in childbirth.) I like to think that the grandparents were killed by Tom Jr's already strong, already evil, uncontrolled magic, combined with a toddler temper tantrum. I assume they were the only wizarding family in a Muggle village and the Muggles took the child to the orphanage before wizarding folk figured out what to do with the unwanted orphan. Also, I like to think that Tom's mother was named Mirella or Miranda, as her father's name was Marvolo -- I feel SURE that Marvolo was the given name of a wizard grandfather, not of a Muggle grandfather. Whicheverway, I have always suspected that the story of "a foul, common Muggle, who abandoned me even before I was born, just because he found out his wife was a witch" is not exactly true, altho' believed by Tom Jr. In my theory, either whoever told the story to Tom Jr euphemised it to spare his feelings or his mother euphemised it when she told whoever told the orphanage people, but really (in my theory) Tom's mother was never MARRIED to Tom Sr. Tom Sr didn't (in my theory) dump his wife because he learned that he was a witch, he merely refused to marry the girl he'd gotten pregnant and he never even knew that she was a witch. Since I agree with KYLI's theory of why Tom Jr hates Muggles, I consider it pretty ironic that it is based on a false fact. If he'd been told the truth, he could have campaigned against premarital sex rather than against Muggles. (I suppose it would be talking politics if I mentioned Tom Unz in this context?) UncMark wrote: > 'Cho' might be an anglicized nickname for a much longer given name Chocolate? I went to a poetry reading by a woman named Chocolate Waters; when she walked out to the lectern, I really was surprised that she was a blonde white woman and whispered to my companion: "I didn't think someone named Chocolate was *white*" and my companion flattteringly thought I was making a joke about the color of chocolate candy. From moongirlk at yahoo.com Sat Mar 2 21:36:11 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 21:36:11 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Crookshanks In-Reply-To: <4.3.0.20020301190710.00d8ecc0@pop.netwrx1.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35978 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kim Heikkinen wrote: > Obviously, you have never owned a cat. >From the perspective of someone who has had a cat in her life pretty much non-stop since the age of 3, let me pipe in. When a person takes on a pet, he or she takes on a responsibility for its well- being and for it's behavior. I agree with what many have said that it's common knowlege that cats tend to do exactly what they want to do, that it's difficult to restrain them, and that they are crafty and creative in getting their way. But I think that means that if a person is not prepared to take appropriate steps to keep the pet safe and/or prevent it from causing trouble for others, they should probably go with a goldfish. I live in the city, so I keep my cat indoors, often against her desires and endless attempts to the contrary. If I didn't make that effort, it would be a matter of time before she was hit by a car and killed. It is also accepted by most pet-lovers that one spays/neuters a cat unless it is meant for breeding. This despite the fact that it is an unpleasant experience for the cat and that, in many cases, the cat is never intended to be allowed around other animals. These are precautions, and they're the owner's responsibility. The closer the community, the more we need to respect each other's needs, not less. > Previous posts have pointed out how > much easier it is to keep a sick rat, needing rest, in a room than a > healthy cat. If Ron *knows* his rat is sick, why doesn't he keep it in a > quiet, dark, secluded space? Why let it be at large? Why drag it around in > his pocket, bouncing it this way and that? I adopted Piglet (my kitty) from a shelter, and she got really sick shortly after I brought her home. I made a little sling out of an old shirt and carried her around like a baby for a week to keep her warm and to be close, in case anything went wrong. Had I left her in a quiet, dark, secluded place, she would be dead of respiratory arrest now. I bounced her around for a week because I loved her; as a result, she's still here for me to love. Why doesn't RON create a spell > that will keep Crookshanks out of the boys' dormitory? "Nope. Not buying > that one." Now this really *does* sound insensitive. I'm sure it wasn't meant to, but seriously - say my neighbor has a really big dog. Say that neighbor considers it my responsibility to keep their dog from hurting my cat, and say my cat then turns up missing. How should a cat lover feel then? Kimberly a cat lover (and dog lover!) herself who believes love of a pet involves more than indulgence. From uncmark at yahoo.com Sat Mar 2 21:42:06 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 21:42:06 -0000 Subject: HRH Courage under Fire Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35979 I was wondering about JKR's treatment of courage in her characters. the 3 main characters are wizard born (Ron), Muggleborn (Hermione), and wizardborn raised by muggles (Harry). Remember your own development at age 11-15 and see how'd you react facing a dark wizard wanting to kill you? Harry is unbelievably heroic at times, especially in SoSt when he decides to enter the trapdoor and keep LV from getting the stone. Why? He decides to go alone for the stone realizing the severity of LV getting it. "Don't you understand? If Snape gets hold of the stone Voldemort's coming back!... If I get caught before I can get the stone, well, I'll have to go back to the Dursley's and wait for Voldemort to find me there, it's only dying a bit later than I would have, because I'm never going to the Dark Side!" To their benefit, Ron and Hermione insist on joining Harry (Good thing) but remember, to them Voldemort was a historical character not real to their 11-year old minds. Ron may have heard stories growing up, but Hermione didn't even hace that! All three characters face the unknown danger without running. In the forbidden forest it was Malfoy who ran from thge sight of LV drinking the Unicorn's blood. In book 2 Hermione was VERY brave, considering she was the first to discover they were facing a basilisk. Most 12 year old girls I know would leave school and return home after learning the heir of Slytherin was targeting muggleborns for attack. Hermione instead finds the book that mentions basilisks and has the presence of mind yo look around corners with a mirror! Ron and Harry (12 year old boys) never gove up even after seeing Hermione petrified. They discover the entrance to the Chamber themselves and taking Lockheart with them jump in without question. The closest thing to regret I saw was Hermione in PofA. After the trio cast expelliumus on Snape, Hetmione mutters, We attacked a teacher. We're going to be in so much trouble!" Still she has the presence to understand Dumbledore that she must use the Time-Turner. Just how unbelievable is she? How many 13 yearolds have the intelligence and maturity to not misuse the Time-Turner? I doubt anyone other than H! So to sum up. The trio of HRH are great and heroic facing unknown dark dangers. As far as cowardice the examples of those come from the pureblood Malfoy (running away in the forest) and Pettigrew (not sure what his heritage is). Neville, who seens to have a reputation as a pushover showed more courage than Malfoy, standing up to Malfoy, Crabbe and Gotle at the book 1 Quidditch match, standing up to HRH when they were leaving Gryffindor to find the SSt, and even asking out Hermione and Ginny in GofF before Harry or Ron could get up the courage. I'm looking forward to see how the characters develop in future books. JKR forever! Uncmark From adatole at yahoo.com Sat Mar 2 19:42:32 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (adatole) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 19:42:32 -0000 Subject: Unified Harry Potter Theorum (was Riddle House Riddles) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35980 Kyli writes: What I would like to know is why Voldie's so picky about blood lines if he's half-Muggle. **************** OK. So here goes my not-so-eath-shaking theory on where the overall series is going. I appologize (once again) if this is old hat. First, for my inputs: Voldemort states that Lily didn't have to die, (but obviously James and Harry do). Harry's parents live in Godric's Hollow Harry's family is filthy rich "Only a true Gryffendor could pull that sword out of the hat" says Dumbledore in COS. Voldemort is the heir of Slytherine (again in COS) So from this I surmise that the Potter family is possibly the heirs of Gryffendor. So my grand theory is thus: If there are no heirs from 3 of the original Hogwarts bloodlines left, then the last heir gets *something*. I have a theory on that too, but I'll get to it in a second. Voldemort, in addition to total world domination, also wants that *something*. While it is not canon, I assume that the heirs to Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw died sometime before (although I also harbor a hope that Dumbledore is the heir to Ravenclaw - don't ask why). He made a special effort to get rid of James and Harry, even though they had gone into hiding and in effect could not openly oppose him. Why bother with hunting down people who are hiding if they don't present a threat? It makes sense if those people who are hiding have something you need. In this case, killing them would give Voldemort a power he craved. So at the end of the series, here is what I see: Voldemort discovers that, having used Harry's blood to create his body, he is now partly heir of Gryffendor too. That means that Voldemort could never be the LAST heir of one house, because he's the heir of two houses at the same time. Shortly after that, he dies. Because he's the bad guy and that's what's supposed to happen and if he doesn't die I would become a twisted cynical wreck of a human being for the rest of my existence. That leaves Harry as the last heir. The something he gets is the ability to "elect" new heirs of the 3 houses. Ron (the faithful one) becomes the heir of Hufflepuff (and also rich, which he's always wanted). Hermionie (the smart one) becomes heir of Ravenclaw. Malfoy (the sneaky one) becomes heir to Slytherine. That conflicts with canon only in that JK said the two would not team up in the future. However "not team up" does not mean Harry can't respect Malfoy for some future deed or event in later books.. So there you go. Again, appologies if this repeats an older thread that I missed. Leon From mmgardin at uwo.ca Sat Mar 2 20:46:42 2002 From: mmgardin at uwo.ca (mmgardin) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 20:46:42 -0000 Subject: anagrams, snape and animagi Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35981 Hi everyone, I've been lurking on this board for several weeks now, searching the archives and rereading the HP books and I finally feel ready to post a few of my own questions. 1. Does anyone know what the "J" in Remus J. Lupin stands for? 2. I don't really like the idea of Snape(easily my favourite character) being a vampire. I do however concede that there are a few references to him swooping around like a bat but I'm choosing to interpret them as a possibility that he is another unregistered animagus (and the form he takes is a bat). It seems that the ministry isn't doing too good a job keeping tabs on their animagi (with at least 4 that I can think of - James Potter, Peter Pettigrew, Rita Skeeter and Sirius Black running around unregistered). 3. I found an few anagrams for potions master that I thought were kind of interesting: I am potter's son. Poison matters. I start on poems.(one of my favourite passages in PS is his poetic introduction to potions) I've also been thinking that avada kedavra might be part of an anagram but I haven't been able to come up with anything yet. Cheers, Marcia From catlady at wicca.net Sat Mar 2 22:43:39 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 22:43:39 -0000 Subject: anagrams, snape and animagi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35982 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mmgardin" wrote: > I do however concede that there are a few references to him > swooping around like a bat but I'm choosing to interpret them as a > possibility that he is another unregistered animagus (and the form > he takes is a bat). Kenilworthy Whisp's introduction to Quidditch Through the Ages mentions bat animagi (IIRC the adjective was 'rare') as the only wizards who can fly without a broomstick or other enchanted object. > 3. I found an few anagrams for potions master that I thought were > kind of interesting: I am potter's son. You may read posts from people who are convinced that it is deeply meaningful that Severus Snape is an anagram of Perseus Evans. I would find that meaningful if there were some way to connect Percy Weasley to the name Perseus to Perseus Evans/Severus Snape. [Evans was Lily and Petunia's middle name - the very useful search tool at http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ found the Scholastic chat at http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm as the citation for: "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)."] From rshuson80 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 2 22:03:40 2002 From: rshuson80 at yahoo.com (nyarth_meow) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 22:03:40 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: <20020302125047.87190.qmail@web20514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35983 Leon wrote: > I am new here, so perhaps I've missed another sub-thread. But I >honestly think that Snape has "enhanced" his opinions for the sake >of the fight that is coming. Dumbledore is much more "aware" than he >appears to many of his colleagues. Snape is perhaps one of the most >perceptive wizards we have met. These people knew clearly that >Voldemort, not dead, would be coming back. And that they would need >someone on "the inside" when that time came to pass. I absolutely agree. It's the perfect cover. What possible reason would Voldemort have to suspect him when even people on the "good" side (Harry, Sirius, Moody with his sceptical look in the pensieve) think he's up to something nasty. I believe these are very real resentments he has, but it suits him to bare a grudge, rather than letting them go. It keeps him safe, no less. It could also account for why we haven't yet found out why Dumbledore trusts Snape, despite all the infighting between Black and Snape being a potential hazard to the cause. Surely a simple explanation could sort it all out? Maybe it suits Dumbledore's plan for relations in his camp to be none too cosy. And explains why Dumbledore never takes Snape to one side and tells him "For God's sake, stop being so psychotic and childish!" Mind you, I do think Snape walks a lonely path as a spy. He can't really make any genuine friendships, because he is betraying the Death Eaters, and yet all these Good Guys he is busting a gut to save can't stand him. -Nyarth (also new around here... 21/f/UK hello!) From rshuson80 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 2 23:01:02 2002 From: rshuson80 at yahoo.com (nyarth_meow) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 23:01:02 -0000 Subject: anagrams, snape and animagi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35984 Marcia wrote: > 2. I don't really like the idea of Snape(easily my favourite > character) being a vampire. I do however concede that there are a > few references to him swooping around like a bat but I'm choosing to > interpret them as a possibility that he is another unregistered > animagus (and the form he takes is a bat). It seems that the > ministry isn't doing too good a job keeping tabs on their animagi > (with at least 4 that I can think of - James Potter, Peter Pettigrew, > Rita Skeeter and Sirius Black running around unregistered). Don't you think this would be labouring the animagus storyline a little bit too much? It's been used twice alreay (Padfoot et al in PoA and Rita Skeeter in GoF) Using it a third time would smack of running out of ideas. At this rate, unregistered animagi will soon outnumber normal wizards (and witches) and so be taking over the world. Personally, I'm well into the Snape-vampire thing. From reading previous posts, I gather it's not such a popular opinion around here, but IMHO there's just too many clues pointing that way to discount it entirely. Not least, JKR's own drawing of Snape shows him with a high Dracula-style collar, lurking behind his cloak like a proper creature of the night. If she didn't concieve him to be a vampire, she certainly imagines him to look like one. Still, time -and Rowling- will tell! Marcia also wrote: > 3. I found an few anagrams for potions master that I thought were > kind of interesting: I am potter's son. > Poison matters. > I start on poems.(one of my favourite passages > in PS is his poetic introduction to potions) Severus Snape is also an anagram of Perseus Evans... Evans being Lily Potter's maiden name. I'm sure this isn't relevant in any way, but it's quite a cute thought! -Nyarth From Ryjedi at aol.com Sun Mar 3 01:51:09 2002 From: Ryjedi at aol.com (rycar007) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 01:51:09 -0000 Subject: The Riddle House Riddles In-Reply-To: <120.c2e8d05.29b25422@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35985 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Whirdy at a... wrote: This leads to another thread in the Pensieve - why are the > Magicals so fearful of the Muggles? Most Muggles are like the Dursleys; they > simply ignore what they consider "abnormal." Simple or difficult spells seem > to provide excellent control - as we find out, even burning really didn't > bother a true Magical. The DE's killed Muggles and others at will. Somehow I'm led to think an unexpected shotgun blast would do a bit more damage than a public burning. The Magical community can do something if they know they're going to be executed or whatever, they can ward themselves if planned. But a knife in the dark, or the inevitable lynch mob? They've reason to be afraid, just look how right-wingers have treated novels on magic. The real thing itself? It might not stand a chance. -Rycar From siskiou at earthlink.net Sun Mar 3 02:33:06 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 18:33:06 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione and Crookshanks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4067464171.20020302183306@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 35986 Hi, Saturday, March 02, 2002, 1:36:11 PM, moongirlk wrote: > Had I left her in > a quiet, dark, secluded place, she would be dead of respiratory > arrest now. I bounced her around for a week because I loved her; as > a result, she's still here for me to love. I agree! Throughout the last 10 years we've owned, and still do, all sorts of rodents (rats, hamsters, gerbils) and especially the rats are very social and enjoy being carried around on a shoulder or in a pocket (even to the store, though secured by a leash). They really don't thrive at being left alone a lot, and most of them want to be close, even when sick. And I love cats, too :) What made Hermione seem insensitive (to me) was that she just didn't seem to care much about Scabbers or Ron's feelings and didn't even seem all that concerned, when Crookshanks attacked. I agree that Hermione can be very caring when she chooses to be (with Neville, for example. I wonder how things would have played out if Crookshanks had gone after Trevor). She just doesn't seem to want to be caring in this situation. Maybe there's just something going on between Hermione and Ron that makes her want to antagonize him just a little bit. Maybe to get back at him for past disagreements. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sun Mar 3 02:41:03 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 18:41:03 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] anagrams, snape and animagi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2480796461.20020302184103@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 35987 Saturday, March 02, 2002, 12:46:42 PM, mmgardin wrote: m> 3. I found an few anagrams for potions master that I thought were m> kind of interesting: I am potter's son. m> Poison matters. m> I start on poems.(one of my favourite passages m> in PS is his poetic introduction to potions) I plugged "potions master" into WordWeb Pro (which features an anagram generator), and got the following in addition: "Neat impostors" (Something to do with his spying?) "I no postmaster" (He never worked in an owlery?) "Tame positrons" (He can harness antimatter??) "Soot spearmint" (His favorite Every Flavor Bean flavor?) "No pet amorists" (He disapproves of beastiality?) "A so smitten pro" (Maybe he *was* in love with Lily!!) It came up with many more, but I'm out of time... :) (I still think "Severus Snape" <--> "Perseus Evans" is the one to watch!) m> I've also been thinking that avada kedavra might be part of an m> anagram but I haven't been able to come up with anything yet. Neither was WordWeb (nothing even slightly meaningful, anyway). -- Dave From siskiou at earthlink.net Sun Mar 3 02:45:22 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 18:45:22 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Was Percy! now Percy/Molly/Hermione In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <18968200824.20020302184522@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 35988 Hi, Saturday, March 02, 2002, 10:56:25 AM, Sandi wrote: > To this I add: any parent knows his/her child's strengths and > weaknesses. > Who is independent, industrious, lazy, michievous, etc. and who needs > to be > pushed. Ideally they should, but in reality it's not always true. Or even if the parents know, they don't always have the right answers as to how to react to those strengths and weaknesses. Or they may not know how the child feels about certain things that the parents don't see as important. For example Ron's dislike of corned beef and the color maroon. I remember getting Marzipan from my grandma for every birthday and Christmas, even though she was told many times that my sister liked it, but I detested the stuff. The first few years I didn't really care all that much, but later on I did start wondering if my grandma cared at all about me, or if she preferred my sister. Ron might start feeling a little resentful, too, if his friend/siblings seem to be preferred by his mom, while he gets overlooked. Or maybe we are just all projecting our own feelings onto the characters . -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sun Mar 3 03:39:14 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 19:39:14 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: anagrams, snape and animagi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6384288420.20020302193914@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 35989 Saturday, March 02, 2002, 3:01:02 PM, nyarth_meow wrote: n> Personally, I'm well into the Snape-vampire thing. From reading n> previous posts, I gather it's not such a popular opinion around here, n> but IMHO there's just too many clues pointing that way to discount it n> entirely. Personally, I'm neutral... Not a passionate advocate, but I think it's possible... n> Not least, JKR's own drawing of Snape shows him with a n> high Dracula-style collar, lurking behind his cloak like a proper n> creature of the night. Oooo! Where did you see her pic of Snape?! -- The spot on _60 Minutes_ showed her pics of Harry, Dudley, Dumbledore, Hagrid, McGonnegal (who Lesley Staul said was "the potions teacher!"*), but not Serverus! -- Dave * She also identified Mary Granpre's pic of Myrtle as Hermione! From mdshoffner at aol.com Sun Mar 3 02:00:56 2002 From: mdshoffner at aol.com (mdshoffner at aol.com) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 21:00:56 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Big Bangers and Neville and Faith Message-ID: <152.9ce9505.29b2ddd8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 35990 After lurking for quite a while now, and trying to get through all the past e-mails (I was horrendously behind), I've finally gotten through them, and I have to say...I think I'm fickle!! I like bits (okay, more than just bits) of the Big Bang theory, I *really* like Faith, and even (don't hold this one against me) Elginmarbles, to a small degree. I know, I know. None of it fits together, but as I said, I'm fickle and it's taken Cindy and Elkins and Kimberly to show me this. I don't know if I'm happy about it or not, 'cause I'm not really sure what it says about me and I don't think I want to know :) > Cindy: > > Oh, not to worry. I love Faith. She's pure, she's thoughtful, > > she's well-groomed, she's the girl-next-door, she probably wears > > plaid skirts and tights. She's disciplined enough not to stray > from > > canon *at all* -- what's not to like? > Kimberly said: Oh no - see, you don't have to pretend to like Faith, that's ok > (although > she is Tough, in her way - her tights are really stockings > and her maryjanes have 4-inch heels). Me: I'm not so sure that I see Faith as strolling around in plaid skirts and tights. I realize that Faith is really Kimberly's...ummm person (?) :), but as someone who is sticking up for Faith, I think she's a lot more than the girl next door. Cindy also mentions in a previous post that Faith and Big Bang will never fit together. I don't see why. Faith lets it all rest on canon and Big Bang does happen with canon. Faith (or at lease my version of Faith) allows there's the possibility of just about anything, including Big Bang, and I think that Faith likes Big Bang, but doesn't totally rely on it. > I think this was Cindy again: > > I'll let Faith in on a little secret (Faith is probably very good > at > > keeping secrets). It's *tremendously* important to me that Neville > > have a Bangy backstory, see. Neville isn't Edgy. Or Tough (no, > > standing up to his friends and enduring a full-body bind does not > > count). Or Funny. Or Competent at the Big magical arts. Or good > > under pressure. There's not a whole lot to admire there, for me > > anyway. He's kind of just vulnerable and rather weak at the > moment, > > IMHO. > Kimberly said: > See, that's the *beauty* of Faith's Neville. He *is* vulnerable and > rather weak at the moment (although Faith points out that he's not > *too* weak. He's braver with girls than Harry and Ron and he's got a > little of Frank Bryce's steel to him - keep on plugging even if life > isn't all it's cracked up to be and nobody's got your back). > Me again: Thank you Kimberly, for summing up Neville so well. There's always been a part of me that *really* likes Neville, and I've never been entirely certain why. I think it must because he is so completely willing to just go on and do what needs to be done even if it all really sucks and you're alone while you're doing it. Kimberly again about Faith: She makes a big distinction between Edge and Bangs. She says the truly Edgy are a Bang in a Bottle themselves, so they don't need any added Bangs (the ones that are already there are plenty, and they know there are always more to come). The Edgiest, according to Faith, prefer the slow burn to flash-fires. She even quoted Snape at me - said I probably couldn't understand the beauty of the softly simmering character. Faith's got Edge. She's got Edge *and* canon, and now that she's gotten out of my head, she's getting a little pushy about it. Me again: I think is what I like about Faith, she's got Edge and not only does she have Edge, she's got canon to back it all up. Kimberly said: wondering if Marina would be willing to trade George for Faith for the weekend. Me: I don't have anything to trade, but I do have a spare bedroom. ;) Melissa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From saintbacchus at yahoo.com Sun Mar 3 02:31:14 2002 From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 02:31:14 -0000 Subject: Half-bloods, Tom Riddle, redheads, and Korean Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35991 Boggles: << Er, Tom Riddle and Harry for two. Hagrid and Madame Maxime probably count, unless the average giant can do magic. >> I'm pretty sure Harry is considered pure blood; I believe the pedegree only has to go back one generation. I wasn't going to count Hagrid and Madame Maxime, but now that you mention it, they're halfsies of quite a different kind. ^_^ Kyli: << I sort of a theory that he hated Muggles because his Muggle father left his witch mother to die, adn he was bitter about it, saying all muggles were a nuisance unto the world. >> I agree. He reacted to his father's intolerance by developing his own. Also, if he was picked on at the Muggle orphanage, he likely reacted by convincing himself that he was better than them because of his powers. Pippin writes: << Besides, Molly probably thinks Ron looks darling in maroon (it shows off your Weasley hair!), and gets maroon stuff for him because she thinks it's his color and it makes the laundry easier to sort. >> Oh, non, non! All the Weasleys are redheads; Molly should know very well that all shades of red clash hideously with red hair. Maroon probably makes Ron look brunette. This struck me immediately when I read the books, but that's probably because my mom and I both have red hair. ^_~ Laura: << (*flinches* there probably is no language called Korean is there? Please excuse my ignorance, you know what I mean -- whatever language they speak there) >> There is indeed a proprietary Korean language. You need to go out and get some FinKL songs. ^_^ Or better yet, Turbo or HOT. Unfortunately, my knowledge of Korean pretty much extends to the opinion that it sounds cool when rapped. I thought the name "Cho Chang" sounded Chinese, and I suspect that Rowling thought the same. I'm always willing to be pleasantly surprised, though! --Anna From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sun Mar 3 03:50:00 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 19:50:00 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: anagrams, snape and animagi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14184934914.20020302195000@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 35992 Saturday, March 02, 2002, 3:01:02 PM, nyarth_meow wrote: n> Don't you think this would be labouring the animagus storyline a n> little bit too much? It's been used twice alreay (Padfoot et al in n> PoA and Rita Skeeter in GoF) Using it a third time would smack of n> running out of ideas. At this rate, unregistered animagi will soon n> outnumber normal wizards (and witches) and so be taking over the n> world. How about this: Maybe Snape isn't an animagus *yet*, but Dumbledore is going to ask him to learn to become one, for spying purposes. So old Sev will be especially irritable next year because he has to teach the "dunderheads" by day as usual, *and then* at night take a crash course in animagus transformation (from *Sirius*?!?!)... How's that for a variation on a theme? :) -- Dave From pollux46 at hotmail.com Sun Mar 3 04:07:57 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 04:07:57 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Ron (NOT SHIP) WAS and Scabbers and wizarding problems Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35993 Susanne wrote: >Are there any instances mentioned where Ron and Hermione do >something together, that's not about helping Harry? Sure there are! Loads of them! Festoons! Grosses even! Why, they come in hundreds and thousands! The books are littered with them, brimming, jam?packed, chockablock! They're, hmmm, , errr, . . . well, not so many actually. As Laura commented: > we *are* restricted to Harry's POV, therefore, we see H/R alone/quality time and we >see H/H alone/quality time, but, >obviously, no R/Hr alone time cause Harry isn't there. ^_~ and after all, about Harry is what the whole series (you know, the "* Harry Potter* and . . ." series) is. What's more, let's not forget that our hero ?bless him!? tends to be errr, less than observant, and hence the conspicuous lack of comments such as "while Harry sat down to finish his Divination homework he was pleased to notice Hermione and Ron had ensconced themselves in two great armchairs by the fire where they were soon lost in an eager exchange and analysis of early childhood experiences which, as Harry contemplated, was sure to fortify the bond between his two best friends and push out of remembrance their latest argument over Crookshanks, that had caused Harry great anxiety" * snort!* IMO, it's more likely that it's Harry who just doesn't really trouble himself over the state of his friends' friendship too much. And that, after all, is exactly what makes the problem we are facing here legitimate. If Harry had indeed been endowed with insight and sensitivity as exemplified above, not only would the books be unreadable (blah!), but what's more we would not have intriguing questions such as this to ponder over and Harry Potter definitely would not be the phenomenon it is. The answers just would be too obvious. Nevertheless however I think there is sufficient Hr--R but not H interaction to prove that their friendship is not solely about Harry. And whenever such instances do creep up they always stand out, for me at least, in vivid relief, exactly because the series generally does not emphasize on this. The most prominent of these is of course Hermione's GoF support of both her friends. She is sufficiently attached to both H and R to not want to take sides ( and sufficiently mature to not be dragged into doing so?something Harry doesn't manage in PoA) But there are also other, less obvious, indications splattered around in the books. So, when (at every second page) something astounding happens, Harry always rushes off to tell Ron and Hermione and always finds them* together*: "Harry headed straight back to the Gryffindor common room, where he found Ron and Hermione playing chess" ? PS ". . .by the time he reached the portrait hole and entered the common room, it was almost deserted. Over in a corner, however, sat Ron and Hermione." ?PoA. "He clambered through the portrait hole into the common room and headed straight for the corner where Ron and Hermione were sitting, to tell them what had happened." -- GoF And then you've got the summer vacations. Ron and Hermione are usually hampered for one reason or another from communicating with Harry during the holidays, but that doesn't seem to stop them from keeping in touch with each other. In fact they're always pretty up to date on the other's news. In the beginning of PoA, not only does Hermione, writing to Harry, know about the telephone catastrophe and that Percy's Head Boy, but the two of them have already made plans to meet in Diagon Alley. This does in fact come off later on in the book and it is evident when Harry runs into them happily enjoying ice? creams outside Florean Fortescue's that they've met up quite a while ago: they've already got their books and searched the whole street for Harry. And don't forget GoF: Ron invites Hermione to the Burrow (something he didn't have to do?he didn't in CoS) and what's more she even arrives at least a day before Harry. So, yeah, I would say there are enough instances of Ron and Hermione doing things together. What? I don't know, Harry's not there. Play lot's of chess and exchange the usual snipes? But IMO it's evident in Canon that they have no problem being in each others company and that in fact they often are, quite as comfortably as in Harry's. Anna wrote: >For that >matter, what's keeping the whole of the Wizarding World >from using magical solutions to THEIR problems? Nothing! And therefore they do so all the time. >From Lockhart to Hermione witches and wizards are always turning to magic to solve their problems whether for practical or purely egotistical reasons.The thing is though, if you live in a community of people that can wield it, magic can not only help you, but harm you as well. The obvious example is wizarding medicine: Madame Pomphrey has no trouble with broken hands whatsoever: they're healed sooner than a paper cut in the Muggle world. But magic can also cause you serious grief health?wise. E.g. a blotched Polyjuice Potion earns Hermione a month or so in the hospital word. So ordinary afflictions seem to pose no problem thanks of course to magic, but magic induced ones need stronger magic to counter it. And now, it's almost 6 in the morning and I've just got home from dancing the night away at a friend's party, so as well as dead on my feet I am feeling temporarily braindead too. Sorry if none of the above makes sense, but I had to send this tonight because I'd started it on a lap?top I shall be deprived of tomorrow long before I wake up. Charis Julia. From vencloviene at hotmail.com Sun Mar 3 04:45:59 2002 From: vencloviene at hotmail.com (anavenc) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 04:45:59 -0000 Subject: anagrams, snape and animagi In-Reply-To: <6384288420.20020302193914@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35994 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > > > n> Not least, JKR's own drawing of Snape shows him with a > n> high Dracula-style collar, lurking behind his cloak like a proper > n> creature of the night. > > Oooo! Where did you see her pic of Snape?! -- The spot on > _60 Minutes_ showed her pics of Harry, Dudley, Dumbledore, > Hagrid, McGonnegal (who Lesley Staul said was "the potions > teacher!"*), but not Serverus! > > -- > Dave > Here you are, Dave. You can go to http://www.fictionalley.org/harryandme/ They posted screen captures of many JKR's drawings, not only that of Snape, who, by the way, on that pic *does* look like a vampire with an overlarge nose. I am personally inclined to think that Snape is either a part-vampire o, indeed, a bat-animagus, but most fans seem to think that it would rob him of his complexity and turn him to a walking cliche. *shrugs* Cheers, Ana. From tabouli at unite.com.au Sun Mar 3 08:47:57 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 19:47:57 +1100 Subject: Cho's name: The battle rages on! Message-ID: <00f701c1c290$6c4dc600$8533c2cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 35996 [Note: This thread is starting to slide off-topic into Chinese linguistics, as usual! We should probably continue further debate over Cho's name on OT-Chatter] saturnvenus84: > The given name 'Cho' has to be guessed at. The sound 'cho' doesn't occur in pin'yin, but could be equivalent to zhuo, chuo, chou, zhou, zhe, che, qiu or even jiu - take your pick! The problem is finding a nice-sounding, plausible character that would be suitable as a girl's name. The translators choose Qiu1, meaning 'autumn'."< Just to let people know, the "1" in Qiu1 and Zhang1 refers to the the way the sound is pronounced, i.e. at a high, level pitch (called "first tone", hence the number 1). greyshi: > As a Chinese speaker with familiarity of two different Chinese dialects and other East Asian dialects, I never thought that Cho was Chinese. You'd really have to do some creative spelling and discount pronunciation to get "Cho" out of Mandarin or Cantonese.< (Tabouli takes her half-Hokkien-Chinese non-native Mandarin speaker with token smattering of Japanese life in her hands, and decides to debate this...) In my experience turning the sound of a Chinese character into a romanised spelling in the absence of a standard romanisation system (like Hanyu pinyin) is renowned for its creativity! I know people in the same Chinese family (my mother's family, even!), with the same character for their family name, who spell their "English" surnames differently. I don't think getting a sound like "Cho" out of Mandarin takes all *that* much creative spelling and dubious pronunciation. There are, as saturnvenus84 mentions, quite a lot of sounds in Mandarin which are similar to "Cho". In fact, I think this spelling is much more likely to elicit a reasonably correct pronunciation from a native English speaker than the pinyin "chou" (closest equivalent), or "qiu" (autumn, chosen by the Chinese translator). The fact that the spelling "cho" isn't used in the pinyin system doesn't mean it's not a perfectly good one which a Chinese person living in an English speaking country might adopt to make life easier for the English speakers. I have a friend who quite happily changed the spelling of her Chinese given name so that French speakers would pronounce it closer to the actual pronunciation. Can't vouch for Cantonese (as my knowledge there is limited to counting to ten and a few yum cha dishes), but my Hokkien speaking mother thought "Cho Chang" sounded like a Hong Kong name. Of course, she's from Malaysia not Hong Kong, but she certainly mixes with Overseas Chinese from all over the place who have been living long-term in an English-speaking country. Certainly the sound "cho" exists in Hokkien, and from vague memories of the couple of Hokkien classes I attended in China, I think it's even spelt that way in standard Hokkien romanisation (e.g. cho kung = work). Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aiz24 at hotmail.com Sun Mar 3 09:34:44 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 04:34:44 -0500 Subject: Hermione - Hermione & Ron (no ship) - Molly Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35997 Catherine in California is a dog person but nevertheless made a valid point when she wrote: >The darn cat even follows her into the boys' room. Yup; worse than that, she brings him in and puts him on Seamus's bed. I love cats, and I love Hermione, but she's criminally clueless on this issue. Thank you Serenadust for pointing out that she specifically reassured Ron that Crookshanks would stay in her room in chapter 4. One day later she's letting him loose in the train compartment and not restraining him when he jumps right onto Ron's lap. Kim the catlover wrote: >Why doesn't RON create a spell that will keep Crookshanks out of the boys' >dormitory? Blaming the victim! ("He assaulted you in your own home? And why did you let him in, hm?") >From one cat lover to another: what if Ron's pet were a German shepherd? Would you think it was Hermione's job to cast a protective spell around her room, or would you think it was Ron's job to keep his dog from mauling her cat? Serenadust wrote: > > Her insensitivity to others can > >be breathtaking at times. Remember her response to the death of > >Lavenders rabbit? She consistently favors being right >over being kind. Laura responded: > I'm sorry, but I flat-out disagree with this one. First of all, Lavender was being a little...well, silly, at this instance, and, if I do recall, Hermione was trying very hard to approach the topic delicately, while still point out that perhaps Prof. Trelawney may not be all-powerful -- which I would like to point out Lavender *needs* to know. It's not healthy, the way she and Pavarti view the old fraud. Frankly, I see it as dangerous. That kind of naivety and susceptibility to cons can only lead to pain and trouble. Sometimes it is necessary to be insensitive in order to help others in the long run. May I suggest some middle ground? I can't see how Hermione "consistently" favors being right over being kind. Divination pushes her buttons, and she has a blind spot about her cat, but she is notably kind (e.g. to Neville, Ginny, and Hagrid) and usually very tactful. I think JKR does a great job of showing how stressed-out Hermione is by the subtle ways she is out of character in PoA. Knowing how I am at the end of even one 12-hour workday (hint: you don't want to be in the same room without a very good Shield Charm), Hermione's impatience, poor judgment, and snappiness when she's doing double days every day are to be expected. OTOH, she is right about Lavender's rabbit but exceedingly tactless. Elsewhere, Boggles suggests that Hermione gets a two out of three on the "true, kind, necessary" checklist in this incident. I'd give her one out of three. It is not necessary to take that particular opportunity to point out the illogic in Lavender's credulity about Divination. But that's a part of growing up for us Hermione types: learning that there are right and wrong ways, right and wrong times to say what you believe. I've almost sorted it out at age 33 . . . Susanne wondered: >Are there any instances mentioned where Ron and Hermione do >something together, that's not about helping Harry? They go to Hogsmeade together, twice, without Harry in PoA, and seem to have a very good time. No ship intended; I do think they are very dear friends, just like Harry & Hermione and Harry & Ron. I wouldn't like the level of squabbling myself, but they both seem to be fine with it. I particularly think of the moment when Ron makes fun of Hermione in the same scene as above, re: what she should buy herself for her birthday: "How about a nice book?" She just says "I don't think so," "composedly." They do get on each other's nerves but their conflicts also have a kind of equilibrium that they are generally comfortable with. Actually, thinking of Hermione's kindness, this is one thing she and Ron have in common. Ron isn't kind in the same touchy-feely way--he wouldn't go put his arm around an upset friend, as Hermione does for Ginny in PA 5--well, he's a boy, you know--but his sensitivity shows in how fiercely he defends people who are insulted, attacking Malfoy for calling Hermione a Mudblood in CS, throwing a crocodile heart at Malfoy on Harry's behalf in PA, and telling a suit of armor to shut up when it laughs at Neville in GF. Boggles wrote re: halfbloods we know: >Er, Tom Riddle and Harry for two. Well, there are two schools of thought on this list about what constitutes a "halfblood": the status-of-parents school a halfblood is someone with one Muggle, one magical parent) and the sum-total-of-ancestors school (two Muggle grandparents make one a halfblood). Harry's parents were both magical, unlike Seamus's and Riddle's. Re: Molly: I agree with the criticisms that she should remember what foods and colors Ron dislikes, but when it comes to the money issues, she can't be blamed. If you can't imagine how someone could be too broke to buy her son new dress robes or a proper wand . . . well, you're lucky. I suspect that those of us who know what it's like to run out of money two weeks before one's next paycheck are more sympathetic to Molly. Amy Z who loves this list because it teaches her useful new terms like "goose-shit green" -------------------------------------------------- "Very haunted up here, isn't it?" said Ron, with the air of one commenting on the weather. -HP and the Prisoner of Azkaban -------------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From aiz24 at hotmail.com Sun Mar 3 10:43:04 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 10:43:04 -0000 Subject: "J" (WAS anagrams, snape and animagi) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35998 Marcia delurked (welcome!) to ask: > 1. Does anyone know what the "J" in Remus J. Lupin stands for? Only he and his Creator know--okay, Sirius and Peter probably know too--but since we are not ones to shirk from wild, unfounded speculation, theories have been boldly expounded on this list. Check out messages 19365, 11960, 19318, 19380, & 19442 and the attached threads. This and many more fascinating questions are coming to a Lupin "Fantastic Posts and Where to Find Them" (a.k.a. FAQs) to be completed April 1. I announce that here in order to shame myself into finishing it. Amy Z ------------------------------------------------------ "We could all have been killed--or worse, expelled." -HP and the Philosopher's Stone ------------------------------------------------------ From nbidoul at hotmail.com Sun Mar 3 11:35:09 2002 From: nbidoul at hotmail.com (Nicole Bidoul) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 08:35:09 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Unified Harry Potter Theorum (was Riddle House Riddles) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 35999 Hi, Adatole wrote: >First, for my inputs: >Voldemort states that Lily didn't have to die, (but obviously James and >Harry do). >Harry's parents live in Godric's Hollow >Harry's family is filthy rich >"Only a true Gryffendor could pull that sword out of the hat" says >Dumbledore in COS. >Voldemort is the heir of Slytherine (again in COS) > >So from this I surmise that the Potter family is possibly the heirs of >Gryffendor. They could be the heirs, but I have many doubts about this being something really important. >He made a special effort to get rid of James and Harry (...) Im not so sure that his efforts were to get rid of Harry AND James. I think that Voldemort only wished to get rid of Harry and his parents got in the way ( all the books states that Lily didnt have to die, but if Im not mistaken Voldemort never states that *exactly*. He always tell about how Harrys *parents* were stupid or didnt need to die. The only time we hear Voldemort saying Lily didnt have to die is in Harrys memory of that day. But, of course, Im not sure about this and I have big possibilities of being very wrong; if I am, please tell me) My *theory* First some things that I got from the books: -In PS I think Hagrid mentioned something about Voldemort... that it was odd that he didnt try to approach the Potters before (and it *seems* to me that he had plenty of time to do this). And in PoA (or GoF, Im not quite sure) it says that it was just a year before the death of Harry parents that a spy (Peter) began to give Voldemort information about Dumbledores group, and, if Im not mistaken, that is at least close to Harrys birth day. -In PoA Dumbledore says something about the divination professor. When Harry tells about her *prophecy*, Dumbledore says something about that being the second one. So what's the first one? -In PS when Harry asks to Dumbledore why Voldemort want him, Dumbledore says that he cannot tell him at that time, that when he became older he would know. Now, Voldemort had, at least, 20 years (probably more) to prepare himself, to make his plans to take over the world, to gather the necessary information, before he began his rise as the dark lord, and I assume that if the heirs were important he would have made a research about who they were and attacked them first. So why havent he attacked the Potters before? Why havent he shown interest in them before Harry was born? All this make me believe that the first prophecy of the divination professor was about Harry (and the dark lord). When he was born, Peter for some reason got afraid (maybe he misunderstood the prophecy...or no), and thought that it was better to stay in the dark lord side. So Peter tells Voldemort about the prophecy and Harry, and since then becomes a spy. Voldemort then prepares himself to kill Harry. Dumbledores spies inform him about that and Dumbledore began to try to protect the Potters, until they finally decide to cast the charm of the secret keeper.(You know what happens, and) Then Voldemort goes to the Potters with the intention to kill Harry. Maybe Voldemort killed all the Potter family, but I believe that it was just in order to find out where Harry was. And about the heir thing, I believe the Potter family could be the heir of Gryffindor but that wouldnt be of extreme importance as I said before(IMHO) Sorry if this was already discussed here (Im new here btw) and sorry if my ideas were not organized properly, and sorry(this is the last) for my poor English skills. Nicole _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Mar 3 15:15:50 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 15:15:50 -0000 Subject: Stagnant Characters (WAS Fudge is Way Evil and I have ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36000 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Naama wrote: > > > Okay. This is one of my pet peeves. I've commented on this a few > > times (way back) but didn't get much response. So I'll just say it again (in the most provocative way I can :-)) : > > > > MOST Pottervers characters turn out to be exactly what Harry > > originally thinks they are. Moreover, once a character has been > > established s/he NEVER surprises us as far as his/her basic > qualities > > go. > > Hmmm. I must have missed this subject the first time around. > Perhaps I was actually getting some *work* done or something. :-) > Nah. It was way back, probably before you joined the group. > My opinion, though, is that HP characters change a lot, except when > they don't. :-) > > What I mean is that we do have characters who change over the course of the four books without it being a huge plot twist. > But then again, I have to wonder how much change we can really > expect here. The books take place over four consecutive years. I'd > guess that for many of us, our "basic qualities" haven't changed dramatically over the last four years. In my case, I'd have to admit that my "basic qualities" may not have changed in decades. > :-) Is it realistic to expect HP characters to change dramatically > in just four years, particularly when we are limited to the filter > of Harry's POV? > I think the main problem with our debate here is that we're not talking about the same thing when we say "change." What *I* meant by it, is a deep shift in our perception of the character's character; that we find that s/he is not as s/he seems. *You* seem to use "change" in the sense of "develop." In order to reach semantic agreement, I'd like to distinguish between two two kinds of developement (or change). One is the development that the characters go through as real people. That is, they develop as they grow up or because of experiences they go through or because other people influence them, etc. The examples you give of Hermione and Ginny fall under this category. A different kind of developement is the development of the character as a fictional character - that is, the gradual (or otherwise) revelation of his/her personality by the author. IMO, Crouch and Bagman fall under this category. During the period of time we "know" them (that is, GoF) they dont' change in themselves. What changes is our knowledge and understanding of them. Of course, during four years the young characters do change and develop as young people do and should. In this sense, we can talk of whether their development is in character or not. Is 14 year old Harry a reasonable "extension" of 11 year old Harry? Is Ron? Is Hermione? Etc. But I think that this discussion is much more about the second category of development/change - that of the change in *our perception* of the character. It is in regard of this that I claim that characters do not change (besides those shifts and twists in the guilty/red-herring characters involved in the mystery plots of each book). > Naama again: > > >Even characters such as > > Lupin, who seem suspicious for a while, once their innocence has > been > > established, do not change. > > There might be an exception to this observation. Bagman is > initially introduced as the harmless, affable retired jock. Then we > are signaled that he might be evil. Then he turns out to be semi- > evil -- he swindles Fred and George and heads for the hills. > Bagman, then, gets to wear three hats. > > Crouch Sr. would be another exception. We see him as upstanding and > reputable. Then he becomes suspicious (acting funny, mysterious > disappearances). Then he becomes a firm supporter of the Good Guys > (Sirius' account of him in the cave). Then he becomes dead. :-) I > think we were certainly expected to be very suspicious of Crouch > initially, though, and so we get some change and development until > Crouch Sr., er, becomes a bone. Well, I don't really agree with these two examples. First, I think we should distinguish between personality and circumstances (such as becoming dead ;-)). We are surprised maybe by what we learn about Crouch's history, but I don't think it surprises us as far as our assessment of his personality goes. He is portrayed from the beginning as a rigid, humorless and harsh person and he is revealed to be exactly that, only more so. His character is rounded, yes, but it is a padding, so to speak, on our previous conception of him. And I think that the same goes for Bagman. He seems jolly, friendly and *un*-trustworthy (he encourages 16 year old kids to gamble - against their father's expressed wishes!) and he turns out to be exactly that - only more so. > > Naama again: > > >So, if I apply this to Fudge, I'd say that (as a member of the > > regular cast) he is precisely what he seems to be. > > That's where I might have to take issue with you. Yes, the *facts* > surrounding Fudge are what they are. But the *meaning* of those > facts are, IMHO, open to debate. I see Supreme Evil DE Fudge > because some of his actions (his behavior at the entrance to the > maze) can't be squared with that of bumbling bureaucrat. That's interesting. The only thing he did that seems suspicious to me is his bringing in the Dementor which kills Crouch, Jr. You've probably explained this in previous posts, but what do you see as suspicious in Fudge's behaviour at the entrance to the maze? Naama From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Sun Mar 3 15:49:12 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 10:49:12 EST Subject: Ginny Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36001 While reading all 4 of the HP books, one character that has always intrigued me as been Ginny. So far, she hasn't had much, how shall I put this, "screen time", but there are several times when she comes into play. When I think of Ginny, I get a little confused. Her personality seems to change. Take for example, her terrifying experience in CoS. When the whole story is revealed, we find that Riddle had taken control of Ginny, and had forced to her to such horrible things as killing animals, opening the CoS, and setting the basilisk on humans. At first, one would think that Ginny was easily corrupt. She starts writing in this diary, is quickly consumed by it, and then starts carrying out evil deeds. However, and this is where Ginny's personality changes, she is strong enough to have begun to suspect herself and the diary. While she was under a sort of spell, it was because of Riddle/Voldemort, and many, many courageous wizards and witches had been "hoodwinked" by him before. Also, (and not unlike Harry) Ginny comes back to school the next year in pretty good shape. She doesn't seem twitchy or jumpy, or as though a basilisk is going to pop out of the walls. In fact, she seems rather the same. IMO, Ginny is a strong young woman, and her character will become further established in the next couple of books. I know I'm kind of rambling, but if anyone has anything to say about Ginny, please do so. I'd like to see what other people think about her character. *Chelsea* ("Hermione Granger was on the edge of her seat and looked desperate to start proving that she wasn't a dunderhead" -SS) From cindysphynx at home.com Sun Mar 3 17:30:25 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 17:30:25 -0000 Subject: Stagnant Characters & Evil Fudge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36003 Naama asked (about Fudge being Evil): > That's interesting. The only thing he did that seems suspicious to me > is his bringing in the Dementor which kills Crouch, Jr. You've > probably explained this in previous posts, but what do you see as > suspicious in Fudge's behaviour at the entrance to the maze? I mentioned in another post that I am keeping an eye on Fudge because I think he might be Supremely Evil. Specifically, I said: > Check out GoF, "Veritaserum", when Harry arrives back on the > Hogwarts grounds. Fudge is right there. Expressing horror at > Cedric's death. Trying to pry Cedric's cold dead arm out of Harry's hand. Telling Dumbledore to go speak with the Diggorys >right away. Why does Fudge do these strange things? > > Because Fudge is E-V-I-L, that's why. If anyone ought to go speak >to the Diggorys, it ought to be Fudge. Amos Diggory *works* for >Fudge, for heaven's sake. Fudge is the Minister of Magic and is a > reasonable choice to comfort the Diggorys, which would leave > Dumbledore free to take care of one of his students, Harry. But >no. Fudge *wants* Dumbledore distracted so that Crouch Jr. can >make off with Harry. Fudge was in on the whole Voldemort re- >birthing plot from the get-go, you see. Fudge was just dying to >apparate to the graveyard when the Dark Mark burned on his arm, but >he couldn't because he had to stay on the Hogwarts grounds. Anyway, I ask myself, "How would I write Fudge's conduct at the entrance to the maze if I wanted to hold open the possibility that he is Evil?" I keep getting the same answer: I'd have Fudge do things that a normal person wouldn't do under the circumstances -- something that helps Moody make off with Harry. If someone suddenly appeared holding the arm of a dead person, the *last* thing I'd try to do is pry that person's fingers off of the corpse. Call me strange, but I wouldn't want to touch Cedric. So the fact that Fudge is not only willing to touch Cedric, but is willing to pry Harry's hand open to do it and considers this a high priority, struck me as odd. We shall see. Cindy (getting a little paranoid about who might be a DE) From alexpie at aol.com Sun Mar 3 19:07:59 2002 From: alexpie at aol.com (alexpie at aol.com) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 14:07:59 EST Subject: HP and Get Fuzzy Message-ID: <108.e400f94.29b3ce8f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36004 Have been on hiatus from the list, and from my favorite comic strip, Get Fuzzy, while I was in Florida. Sharp-eyed readers might note that, in today's (Sunday, 3/3) comic, Rob is reading Chapter 14 ( "Cornelius Fudge") of CoS. I haven't caught up on the rest of the strips, but a friend sent me one (2/21) in which a Slytherin poster is displayed on the mean, slightly demented, but endearing, cat's closet door! I'll leave the obvious parallels alone, I guess. A tenuous connection to the book discussion, I know, but Rob *was* reading, after all. Ba From lav at tut.by Sun Mar 3 06:14:53 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 08:14:53 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] HRH Courage under Fire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1879663775.20020303081453@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 36005 Ahh, and at last I delurk again after a looong delay! > Uncmark wrote to us: u> I was wondering about JKR's treatment of courage in her u> characters. the 3 main characters are wizard born (Ron), u> Muggleborn (Hermione), and wizardborn raised by muggles u> (Harry). Remember your own development at age 11-15 and u> see how'd you react facing a dark wizard wanting to kill u> you? Personally I think you underestimate early teens. They are quite capable of *very* mature behavior, especially if their childhood was not nice. And even if it was, hard times make teenagers maturate real fast. There's a Russian fiction writer who writes mostly about teens age 12-15 (exact HRH age!) who, facing situations and dangers that can broke many an adult, still survive and even "keep their soul" (so to say). And the most interesting thing is that he is a psychotherapist and there are *no* characters in his books not taken from real life (under different names, of course), and many a situation he describes actually happened to teens he was working with, with the same results. So I find nothing exceptional in the fact that three best students of Gryffindor (from the point of view of Gryffindor qualities, not from PoV of their marks) can face an archevil dark wizard. u> Harry is unbelievably heroic at times, especially in SoSt u> when he decides to enter the trapdoor and keep LV from u> getting the stone. Why? He decides to go alone for the u> stone realizing the severity of LV getting it. "Don't you u> understand? If Snape gets hold of the stone Voldemort's u> coming back!... If I get caught before I can get the u> stone, well, I'll have to go back to the Dursley's and u> wait for Voldemort to find me there, it's only dying a u> bit later than I would have, because I'm never going to u> the Dark Side!" A perfectly reasonable decision, one a Gandalf or Dumbledore could be proud of. u> (some text skipped) u> Most 12 year old girls I know would leave school and u> return home after learning the heir of Slytherin was u> targeting muggleborns for attack. Hermione instead finds u> the book that mentions basilisks and has the presence of u> mind to look around corners with a mirror! Don't forget that she is extremely self-confident. She has no hints looking at Basilisk in a mirror is dangerous - nothing in the books makes her think so! :) Instead the books say it's safe to do so! Personally I'm wondered why didn't Hermione change her views about books, however slightly, after the accident... u> Ron and Harry (12 year old boys) never gave up even after u> seeing Hermione petrified. They discover the entrance to u> the Chamber themselves and taking Lockheart with them u> jump in without question. Don't forget they both had an extremely good stimuli - Ginny if I remember correctly. u> Just how unbelievable is she? How many 13 yearolds have u> the intelligence and maturity to not misuse the u> Time-Turner? I doubt anyone other than H! IMHO a lot of, if they had comparable experience. u> I'm looking forward to see how the characters develop in future u> books. That's it. We all are looking... :) u> JKR forever! u> Uncmark Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), who is seeking for his old sparring partners to flame each other once again... ;) From greyshi at yahoo.com Sun Mar 3 18:31:17 2002 From: greyshi at yahoo.com (greyshi) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 18:31:17 -0000 Subject: Possibilities for Cho-Ship clues? In-Reply-To: <003f01c1c22a$3b7dce00$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36006 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" wrote: > Okay, so is their any associated meaning to "Cho" or "Chang" in Korean?? (*flinches* there probably is no language called Korean is there? Please excuse my ignorance, you know what I mean -- whatever language they speak there) Perhaps not a direct meaning (The way the name Petunia means a certain type of flower), but maybe a indirect meaning, they way my own name means something like "crowned victoriously in laurel" referring to a pre-medieval custom, or the name Smith means blacksmith and the name Granger means (I think?) a farmer. Ok, I have some possibilities here. I know it was mentioned that this could be taken to OT-Chatter, but in the discussion of the meaning of characters names it would go off inevitably into linguistics and large part of JKR's charm (for me)is the fun she has with names. But I'll forgo the East Asian linguistic lesson and bring this back to a discussion of Cho herself. Everyone's name except Harry's says something about the character beyond sounding merely whimsical and fun. There is a language called Korean. And it's just simpler to think of Cho that way without any further evidence of her ethnicity or convoluted mutations of Chinese theories. If Cho was supposed to be a spelling of Chou, that would be mean since that word can mean ashamed, stinky, clown, gloomy. Qiu is not pronounced Cho in any Chinese language. It sounds like "chew." The Chinese translations just "corrected" her name, figuring Westerners are just ignorant. Kind of like the Americans wouldn't know what a Philosopher's Stone is. :P So here would be the possible meaning of Cho's name. Chang has no meaning. It's just a very common last name. However, Cho in Korean can be "lucid, clear" or one that I find very interesting is "first." Since JKR's names always give us a clue about the character, maybe this means that she's only Harry's first crush (and won't be his last/final love!) IMO, Cho's name means that she and Harry are not meant to be! (Did I just do Ship speculation? I don't know what got into me. I'm just a TOURIST!) Greyshi From tanie_05 at hotmail.com Sun Mar 3 21:11:25 2002 From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 21:11:25 -0000 Subject: Hermione WAS percy/molly/hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36007 > Jo Serenadust wrote: > > Laura Huntley wrote: > > > > Anyway, my point is, there was really no way to contain > Crookshanks, while Scabbers would have been better off in Ron's room > anyway, even if there was no Crookshanks -- what's Ron doing lugging > a sick rat around anyway? The poor thing belongs somewhere quiet, > dark, and peaceful. > > In chapter 4 of CoS, right after Hermione has bought Crookshanks she > says to Ron (after he expresses his concern for Scabbers in > Crookshanks presence), ..."And stop *worrying, Croookshanks will be > sleeping in my dormitory and Scabbers in yours, what's the problem?" > From this point on, she makes no effort whatsoever to keep > Crookshanks from attacking Scabbers and even *carries* him into Ron > and Harry's dorm room on Christmas morning (CoS, chapter 11). She's > being completely thoughtless and irresponsible in this instance. > I've got 2 cats myself and have always been able to keep them in the > house, and can confine them to a bedroom when necessary (allergic > guests, workmen going in and out of the door, etc). She's not even > trying. Now, let's get this ball rolling. Hermione hasn't done that good of a job keeping her cat in her presence, or better yet, out of Scabbers'. She says he'll be in her dorm, but he's never really there all the time, is he? He's always roaming the towers, trying to get to Scabbers, but yet Hermione doesn't stop him until Scabbers was "eaten". Not very good showmanship of responsbility. But then too, we must remember Crookshanks is on "our" side. So in essence, it wasn't good that Crookshanks was free, but it wound up to be good in the end. And that's all that really matters. > Me again: > > > > Her insensitivity to others can > > >be breathtaking at times. Remember her response to the death of > > >Lavenders rabbit? She consistently favors being right >over being > kind. > > Laura again: > > > I'm sorry, but I flat-out disagree with this one. First of all, > > Lavender was being a little...well, silly, at this instance, and, > > if > > I do recall, Hermione was trying very hard to approach the topic > > delicately, while still point out that perhaps Prof. Trelawney > > may > > not be all-powerful -- which I would like to point out Lavender > > *needs* to know. It's not healthy, the way she and Pavarti view > > the > > old fraud. Frankly, I see it as dangerous. That kind of naivety > > and susceptibility to cons can only lead to pain and trouble. > > Sometimes it is necessary to be insensitive in order to help > > others > > in the long run. > > > Aha! You *admit* she's insensitive ;--)! > Who died and left Hermione in charge of telling everyone else how to > respond to upsetting news? IIRC she approached Lavender; Lavender > didn't request her input/advice. This is the crux of my problem > with Hermione. She's always convinced she can run everyone else's > life better than they can. It's a good thing Ron and Harry can put > up with this and see her good qualities in spite of this, because > it's easy to see why she hasn't got any other friends at this point. I have got to say I think this is the *worst* Hermione moment in all the books. She has a very good point, but she chose the wrong time and place to say it. You've got to admit if you were Lavender, mourning over your poor dead baby rabbit, & Hermione told you (to sum it up) that you pretty much had no basis on being upset, wouldn't you be atleast the *least* bit peeved? That was very rude to say it right then. She should have given Lavender some grieving time, (yes, people need grieving time for pets, too) maybe even a week (or maybe longer, depends on the person), & *then* it would have been more appropriate. OTOH, she made a good point, Binky hadn't died on the 16th, (but why not? I mean it shouldn't take an owl that long to get to Hogwarts from her house. Well, it depends on where she lives, too.) she just got the letter on the 16th. I can see why she said it though. (According to my friend, I'm a "Hermione-clone". haha.) She's trying to be logical for everyone, to get them to understand that Prof. Trelawney isn't a "true Seer". If I were Hermione, I may have told them too, but not right then. I can only imagine how she was treated later that night in the dorm. I bet there was a whole lot of arguing. > Laura sums up: > > > *sigh* I was going to list more, but I'm kind of getting sick of > > typing...^_~ anyway, of course Hermione isn't perfect, but I > > still > > think she's a pretty admirable person. > > > I don't disagree that Hermione is really a good person at heart. > However, she *still* has many of the faults she started out with, > and if we're going to find fault with any of the other characters, > then she has to take her lumps too. Oh trust me. She's a good person, but she still has those flaws, much like everyone else. So let's just get along & agree to disagree. -Kyrstyne(the "Herm-clone") From tanie_05 at hotmail.com Sun Mar 3 21:11:30 2002 From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 21:11:30 -0000 Subject: Hermione WAS percy/molly/hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36008 > Jo Serenadust wrote: > > Laura Huntley wrote: > > > > Anyway, my point is, there was really no way to contain > Crookshanks, while Scabbers would have been better off in Ron's room > anyway, even if there was no Crookshanks -- what's Ron doing lugging > a sick rat around anyway? The poor thing belongs somewhere quiet, > dark, and peaceful. > > In chapter 4 of CoS, right after Hermione has bought Crookshanks she > says to Ron (after he expresses his concern for Scabbers in > Crookshanks presence), ..."And stop *worrying, Croookshanks will be > sleeping in my dormitory and Scabbers in yours, what's the problem?" > From this point on, she makes no effort whatsoever to keep > Crookshanks from attacking Scabbers and even *carries* him into Ron > and Harry's dorm room on Christmas morning (CoS, chapter 11). She's > being completely thoughtless and irresponsible in this instance. > I've got 2 cats myself and have always been able to keep them in the > house, and can confine them to a bedroom when necessary (allergic > guests, workmen going in and out of the door, etc). She's not even > trying. Now, let's get this ball rolling. Hermione hasn't done that good of a job keeping her cat in her presence, or better yet, out of Scabbers'. She says he'll be in her dorm, but he's never really there all the time, is he? He's always roaming the towers, trying to get to Scabbers, but yet Hermione doesn't stop him until Scabbers was "eaten". Not very good showmanship of responsbility. But then too, we must remember Crookshanks is on "our" side. So in essence, it wasn't good that Crookshanks was free, but it wound up to be good in the end. And that's all that really matters. > Me again: > > > > Her insensitivity to others can > > >be breathtaking at times. Remember her response to the death of > > >Lavenders rabbit? She consistently favors being right >over being > kind. > > Laura again: > > > I'm sorry, but I flat-out disagree with this one. First of all, > > Lavender was being a little...well, silly, at this instance, and, > > if > > I do recall, Hermione was trying very hard to approach the topic > > delicately, while still point out that perhaps Prof. Trelawney > > may > > not be all-powerful -- which I would like to point out Lavender > > *needs* to know. It's not healthy, the way she and Pavarti view > > the > > old fraud. Frankly, I see it as dangerous. That kind of naivety > > and susceptibility to cons can only lead to pain and trouble. > > Sometimes it is necessary to be insensitive in order to help > > others > > in the long run. > > > Aha! You *admit* she's insensitive ;--)! > Who died and left Hermione in charge of telling everyone else how to > respond to upsetting news? IIRC she approached Lavender; Lavender > didn't request her input/advice. This is the crux of my problem > with Hermione. She's always convinced she can run everyone else's > life better than they can. It's a good thing Ron and Harry can put > up with this and see her good qualities in spite of this, because > it's easy to see why she hasn't got any other friends at this point. I have got to say I think this is the *worst* Hermione moment in all the books. She has a very good point, but she chose the wrong time and place to say it. You've got to admit if you were Lavender, mourning over your poor dead baby rabbit, & Hermione told you (to sum it up) that you pretty much had no basis on being upset, wouldn't you be atleast the *least* bit peeved? That was very rude to say it right then. She should have given Lavender some grieving time, (yes, people need grieving time for pets, too) maybe even a week (or maybe longer, depends on the person), & *then* it would have been more appropriate. OTOH, she made a good point, Binky hadn't died on the 16th, (but why not? I mean it shouldn't take an owl that long to get to Hogwarts from her house. Well, it depends on where she lives, too.) she just got the letter on the 16th. I can see why she said it though. (According to my friend, I'm a "Hermione-clone". haha.) She's trying to be logical for everyone, to get them to understand that Prof. Trelawney isn't a "true Seer". If I were Hermione, I may have told them too, but not right then. I can only imagine how she was treated later that night in the dorm. I bet there was a whole lot of arguing. > Laura sums up: > > > *sigh* I was going to list more, but I'm kind of getting sick of > > typing...^_~ anyway, of course Hermione isn't perfect, but I > > still > > think she's a pretty admirable person. > > > I don't disagree that Hermione is really a good person at heart. > However, she *still* has many of the faults she started out with, > and if we're going to find fault with any of the other characters, > then she has to take her lumps too. Oh trust me. She's a good person, but she still has those flaws, much like everyone else. So let's just get along & agree to disagree. -Kyrstyne(the "Herm-clone") From macloudt at hotmail.com Sun Mar 3 21:15:16 2002 From: macloudt at hotmail.com (macloudt) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 21:15:16 -0000 Subject: Joining chat Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36009 I haven't joined a chat for ages and have forgotten how. I click on "Chat" from the website menu, but the chat board is empty apart from me. Could someone help me, please? Cheers! Mary Ann :) From michelleapostolides at yahoo.co.uk Sun Mar 3 21:20:28 2002 From: michelleapostolides at yahoo.co.uk (Michelle Apostolides) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 21:20:28 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Joining chat References: Message-ID: <003801c1c2f9$3e2f0a40$e346893e@Michelle> No: HPFGUIDX 36010 I haven't joined a chat for ages and have forgotten how. I click on "Chat" from the website menu, but the chat board is empty apart from me. Could someone help me, please? We use a different room now. It's called HP:1 Michelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Sun Mar 3 22:39:12 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 22:39:12 -0000 Subject: More on Parenting Styles WAS :Re: Snape / Bowman Wright / Ron / Molly / Gred&For In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36011 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > Yes! There are certain things in Book 1 that troubled me the first > time I read it and every time since. "She always forgets I don't > like corned beef." "Swap you for one of these," said Harry, holding > up a pasty. "Go on --" "You don't want this, it's all dry," said Ron. > "She hasn't got much time," he added quickly, "you know, with five of > us." Ron is very loyally making excuses for his mother but IMHO she > needs excuses. It seems to me that JKR intends to portray Molly as a > very lovable good person and her relationship with Ron as warm and > loving, but she does these things that just seem like she doesn't > care much about Ron, and like she doesn't do her homemaker job very > well... She's only making *four* to-go lunches, even if they all have > to be the same kind of sandwiches, even if they have to be whatever > was on sale cheap or leftover whether or not the kids like it, how > could she not have enough time to put an anti-dessication charm (or > Saran Wrap Spell) on the sannies? > Adrienne goddessa replied to Debbie: > > > With seven kids... I'm not too surprised. Can you imagine keeping > > track of all the different favorite colors, favorite foods, > > favorite whatevers? > > Why not? I don't have children, but I can recite off the favorite > colors of a long list of my friends, and remember who's allergic to > mushrooms. Those kids are her JOB, she should know them as well as I > know the databases of the system that I support at MY job. I have to admit that these remarks and many others that have characterized this exchange have really, really bothered me. I had to think hard why this would be so, but in the end, I think it really comes down to, once again, people's preference for parenting styles. It would never have occurred to me that parents should know their kids' favourite colours. In fact, in the matter of clothes, it would never occured to me that they were obligated to buy according to the child's tastes. That's just not how it works in my world. My mother has no idea what my favourite colour is, and rode over my fashion sense for years. Even these days when we shop together, she still says things like, "That's a perfectly nice shirt. Why are you making a fuss about it?" In my book, parents have an obligation to properly clothe their kids. Period. Like Ron, I objected strenuously and at length to one dress I had to wear to a conference (perfectly fine, but too old-fashioned, I thought), and she suggested I could go naked. When I read GoF, I nearly died laughing.... And it makes me very mad somehow that people would think that this way of bringing up children is wrong, something that Mrs. Weasley really should examine her conscience for, and beg Ron's pardon about. Ron didn't like his corned beef? And told Harry Mrs. Weasley forgot? Or didn't care? My mother didn't care when I told her I didn't want liverwurst sandwiches. Or spaghetti. I told her I was obviously allergic to spaghetti. It made me gag. She called it psychological and made me sit at the table by myself until I'd eat it. Only then could I have dessert. To me, this is perfectly reasonable. Because of that early strictness, I now enjoy spaghetti. The only kid she lightened up on (because he was supposed to have quite a few allergies, but turned out not to) is now a teen-ager who eats Cheerios at the table rather than try Thai Food. But I suppose that having kids eat what they're given now constitutes child abuse in many people's minds. And taking Ron's "it's all dry" to be an indictment of Mrs. Weasley's sandwich-making skills? Well, you should have seen what my liverwurst sandwiches looked and felt like after I left them open and squished them under my pack. My mother never wanted to open the lunch section of my backpack for fear of what she would find. When I saw Ron holding them up in the film, obviously subjected to the same familiar treatment, I knew once again that though I may have grown up to be Percy, I was Ron as a child. Eileen From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Sun Mar 3 22:47:13 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 22:47:13 -0000 Subject: Hermione, Ron and Scabbers In-Reply-To: <00c201c1c215$fc09ffa0$d1c71bce@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36012 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" wrote: > and poor Ron > wouldn't have had to go through his first two years of school with a > malfunctioning wand. Ron's wand does not malfunction till he breaks it in his second year. Then, he refuses to write back for a new one, because of his parents' reaction. Eileen From ladjables at yahoo.com Sun Mar 3 23:15:02 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 15:15:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Malicious vs. mischievous (was Re: Lupin's Edge/Twins' Edge?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020303231502.53986.qmail@web20409.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36013 Elkins, I had trouble understanding how the twins' teasing, especially of their siblings, could be construed as malicious. It then occurred to me(!) that perhaps I just don't get your use of the word malicious. So, I consulted a dictionary or two. Collins defines: 1.malice-the desire to cause harm in others. 2.mischief-the inclination to tease or annoy, NOT malicious behaviour. While the OED: 1.malice-the desire to harm or cause difficulty to others, ill-will. 2.mischief-troublesome but not malicious conduct, playfulness. Do either of these definitions adequately cover the concept of malice as you see it? I'm assuming your definition lies somewhere in between. Now, there ARE malicious pranksters, but IMHO, the twins' pranks stem from a love of mischief, not malice. They like harrassing people, and they're often inconsiderate, but malice implies intent to cause pain. I don't think the twins really have it in for anyone. I see them more as artists, devoted to creating and executing the perfect prank, as their testing of Wizard Wheezes demonstrates. Regarding the twins' treatment of Percy, you wrote: >I don't think it's accidental that they go after >Percy on precisely the same points for which he is >always being praised by their mother, or for which >they themselves are always being *criticized* by >their mother. Percy has always been perceived as an insufferable prig. But Ron, in SS, confides in Harry about having a lot to measure up to, and notes that F&G get good grades. And yet Percy was already a target way back then. So it's not Percy's academic achievements, it's his attitude, revealed by his penchant for bombast, that convinces the twins ol' Percy needs taking down a peg. And he does! I believe if the twins really were malicious, if they had really taken their mother's words to heart, they'd have become saboteurs. Yet in GoF we never see the twins stealing and altering Percy's homework or destroying his cauldron reports; instead, they limit their pranks to childishly bewitching his badge and sending him dragon dung at work, hardly spiteful IMO. I think that F&G's prank playing is a coping mechanism; like Percy's ambition and Ron's temper, it's their way of dealing with poverty (and it may very well be their way out, if the joke shop gets off the ground!) Perhaps they think laughter is the best medicine and because it works for them, it will also cure everyone's ailments-Percy's bigheadedness especially, Ginny's fear is another. This sort of gives them a unique responsibility in the Weasley family. They may be perceived as thoughtless, but they're well-meaning too. Thus I can't see their actions as malicious and therefore make the distinction between malicious and mischievous pranksters. Ama/ladjables __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball http://sports.yahoo.com From siskiou at earthlink.net Sun Mar 3 23:21:13 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 15:21:13 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] More on Parenting Styles WAS :Re: Snape / Bowman Wright / Ron / Molly / Gred&For In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1386615302.20020303152113@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36014 Hi, Sunday, March 03, 2002, 2:39:12 PM, lucky_kari wrote: > And it makes me very mad somehow that people would think that this > way of bringing up children is wrong, something that Mrs. Weasley > really should examine her conscience for, and beg Ron's pardon about. Well, while it might not be wrong, it's certainly only one way of parenting. When you give your parents gifts, don't you try to get them something they will like, instead of just anything? Should you instead think "who cares if they like it, I've done my duty?". This may a be a bit harsh, but that's what the reverse sounded like to me. It isn't that much of a hardship for a parent to buy the same shirt in a color that is acceptable to both the parent and the child (if the choice isn't limited by some rule, like school uniforms, for example). And would it have really been such big trouble to take off the lace, at least? And why *always* maroon as a color? If you're looking for cheap clothing, I'm sure it would be easier to be a little more flexible with the colors, instead of searching for things in that particular color. And while forcing someone to eat something they can't stand may make some people like it later, it works the opposite way for may others. And there are many other choices for cheap sandwich material. But mostly it *is* a matter a different perceptions, I guess. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Sun Mar 3 23:25:50 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 23:25:50 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36015 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jake Storm" wrote: > >From: "eledhwen_0" > >my question is: Why do Hermione's > >parents or any of the other muggle parents and children belive in the > >letter from Hogwarts? Harry only believes it because Hagrid convinces > >him and they can not send a giant to everyone. If I got that letter I > >would think that it was a prank. > I also wonder if other magic-capable children do little strange tricks (like Harry with the glass at the zoo) before getting the letter, hence the parents might realize "Wow, this explains an awful lot about little Billy". I, too, would hope that the school sends a bit more information than the simple letter to muggle kids. A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From jloveys at zoom.co.uk Sun Mar 3 19:54:12 2002 From: jloveys at zoom.co.uk (Jedi Knight Jo) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 19:54:12 -0000 Subject: Fw: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George's wager on the Quidditch World Cup Message-ID: <005801c1c2ed$33f338a0$483e68d5@jody> No: HPFGUIDX 36016 Hi, I just joined so I thought I'd better find something to comment on. >>I just have to add my agreement to the bunch. There was no point spread, no "grey area" that they could hope to fit into. They called the end of the match with prescient accuracy. IMHO, it has to be more than a coincidence.<< I always just thought that as avid Quidditch fans, Fred and George knew what they were talking about because they'd seen the teams or read results. The Irish team are clearly better overall than the Bulgarians, but the Bulgarians have the better seeker in Krum. Since this is the final, it may have been a pattern throughout the rest of the tournament that the Irish win but don't get the snitch, or the Krum always gets it whether his time has won or lost a match (as far as I know, we never find out how it's decided which teams get through to the final and which don't - it could be a knockout tournament, or it could work like the World Cup where the teams accumulate points). With a game like Quidditch that hinges on a specific event rather than having a time limit, someone who really knows the sport would be able to make predictions like this on knowledge of past events. But the above is, of course just my opinion and I'll go back to hiding behind my rock now. --Jo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eclipse02134 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 3 22:38:07 2002 From: eclipse02134 at yahoo.com (Eclipse) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 14:38:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Time Turner and the Marauder's Map In-Reply-To: <20020227105234.26381.qmail@web21110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20020303223807.32627.qmail@web20805.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36017 I don't know if its been discussed, but I wondered if a person using a time turner shows up more than once on the map. If so why doesn't Lupin comment that he say Harry and Hermonie twice by Hagrid's hut? I figure a person only shows up once and that would be for his or her first time though the events. Eclipse __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball http://sports.yahoo.com From slinkie at nids.se Sun Mar 3 23:12:30 2002 From: slinkie at nids.se (eledhwen_0) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 23:12:30 -0000 Subject: Room mentioned in GoF Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36018 Hi! Please excuse me if you have allready discussed this, but I am new. What is up with the room that is mentioned in GoF by Dumbledore, during the Yule ball? The one that might only be reached when the person has an exceptionally full bladder. Does anyone have any idea where it is or if there is something special about it? It always made me curios because things just meantioned quickly by JKR (like this) can play an important part in future plots. Ideas anyone? eledhwen From tanie_05 at hotmail.com Sun Mar 3 23:51:00 2002 From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 23:51:00 -0000 Subject: Room mentioned in GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36019 eledhwen wrote: > Hi! > > Please excuse me if you have allready discussed this, but I am new. Hi & welcome then! :) > What is up with the room that is mentioned in GoF by Dumbledore, > during the Yule ball? The one that might only be reached when the > person has an exceptionally full bladder. Does anyone have any idea > where it is or if there is something special about it? It always made > me curios because things just meantioned quickly by JKR (like this) > can play an important part in future plots. > > Ideas anyone? I thought it was just a joke. I didn't have a copy of GoF on me right now (curses & befuddles!:() but wasn't Harry being questioned about something & D'dore said that to his defence. I figured he was playing with whoever he was talking to's mind. Anyhoo, that's my theory. -Kyrstyne From boggles at earthlink.net Mon Mar 4 00:18:36 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 18:18:36 -0600 Subject: Half-Blood, Pureblood, Muggle-Born In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36020 At 2:31 AM +0000 3/3/02, saintbacchus wrote: >Boggles: ><< >Er, Tom Riddle and Harry for two. Hagrid and Madame Maxime >probably count, unless the average giant can do magic. >>> > >I'm pretty sure Harry is considered pure blood; I believe >the pedegree only has to go back one generation. That doesn't jibe either with Ron's comment that "most" wizards are now half-bloods, since the combination of a wizard and a Muggle isn't _that_ common, or Ernie Macmillan's defensive reaction to Harry in CoS 11, when he tells Harry that he's wizard born for "nine generations, and my blood's as pure as anyone's." Riddle refers to Potter as a half-blood, like himself, in the Chamber itself. So, clearly having Muggle grandparents is enough to be a half-blood. I suspect, given Ernie's response, that the general rule for those wizards who care about such things is the one-eighth rule - one Muggle or Muggle-born great-grandparent is sufficient to make one a half-blood. That would jibe with Draco's (and, by his implication, the Death Eaters's) not drawing a distinction between Muggles and Muggle-borns in GoF 9 - all Muggle blood, no wizard blood at all in either case, so the child of a Muggle-born witch and a pureblood wizard (Harry) is just as much a halfblood as the child of a pureblood witch and a Muggle father (Tom Riddle or Seamus). The Malfoys themselves probably hold to the one-drop rule - any detectable Muggle ancestry and you're a half-blood, not a pureblood wizard. However, Malfoy doesn't seem to mind associating with half-bloods as long as they know their place; he only asks in PS/SS 5 whether Harry's parents were wizards, not what their full pedigrees were, and he seems to be, if not trying to make friends, at least trying to make Harry's acquaintance. >I wasn't going to count Hagrid and Madame Maxime, but now >that you mention it, they're halfsies of quite a different >kind. ^_^ I'm not at all convinced that it's that different at all. The whole issue of duality, of being "half-and-half" shows up over and over in the books - half-blood, werewolf, half-giant, double agent, Animagus . . . . At 4:34 AM -0500 3/3/02, Amy Z wrote: >Well, there are two schools of thought on this list about what constitutes a >"halfblood": the status-of-parents school a halfblood is someone with one >Muggle, one magical parent) and the sum-total-of-ancestors school (two >Muggle grandparents make one a halfblood). Harry's parents were both >magical, unlike Seamus's and Riddle's. Yes, but barring the "Petunia is a Squib and at least one of the Evanses was a wizard/witch" theories, Harry still has two Muggle grandparents and qualifies under the ancestors-theory. I can't make the simple status-of-parents version fit either with Riddle's comment, Ron's, or Ernie's, above. On the other hand, the wizarding community need have no more a consistent definition than we have from them now. Perhaps to some wizards, simply being on magical parentage on both sides is enough, while others hold to the one-drop rule, and others keep to seven or nine generations. That would be in keeping with some of the arguments about who is or isn't black or Native American in the Muggle world; why should the wizards be more consistent? -- - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon boggles at earthlink.net === Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 === GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+ c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+ ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U! From christi0469 at hotmail.com Mon Mar 4 00:49:29 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 00:49:29 -0000 Subject: Nicole's theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36021 Nicole wrote, > My *theory* > First some things that I got from the books: > -In PS I think Hagrid mentioned something about Voldemort... that it was odd > that he didn't try to approach the Potters before (and it *seems* to me that > he had plenty of time to do this). And in PoA (or GoF, I'm not quite sure) > it says that it was just a year before the death of Harry parents that a spy > (Peter) began to give Voldemort information about Dumbledore's group, > and, if I'm not mistaken, that is at least close to Harry's birth day. > -In PoA Dumbledore says something about the divination professor. When Harry > tells about her *prophecy*, Dumbledore says something about that being the > second one. So what's the first one? > -In PS when Harry asks to Dumbledore why Voldemort want him, Dumbledore says > that he cannot tell him at that time, that when he became older he would > know. > So Peter tells Voldemort about the prophecy and Harry, and since then > becomes a spy. Voldemort then prepares himself to kill Harry. Dumbledore's > spies inform him about that and Dumbledore began to try to protect the > Potters, until they finally decide to cast the charm of the secret > keeper.(You know what happens, and) Then Voldemort goes to the Potters with > the intention to kill Harry. > > Maybe Voldemort killed all the Potter family, but I believe that it was just > in order to find out where Harry was. And about the heir thing, I believe > the Potter family could be the heir of Gryffindor but that wouldn't be of > extreme importance as I said before(IMHO) I was very curious when Dumbledore brought up the existence of Trelawney's first real prediction, and I too thought it probably had something to do with why Voldemort wanted to kill Harry. This theoretical prediction could have been the catalyst for Peter's defection. I wonder if it could also have been the catalyst for Snape's defection. We know that he defected sometime before Voldemort's downfall, and IMHO he would have needed time to prove his loyalty to Dumbledore. His timing could certainly have coincided with Peter's. I suspect that Voldemort's reason for targetting Harry (or Harry and James) is going to be extremely significant; unfortunately, I also suspect that JKR will save it for the seventh book, when Harry becomes of age. Christi From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Mon Mar 4 02:36:29 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 02:36:29 -0000 Subject: The Time Turner and the Marauder's Map In-Reply-To: <20020303223807.32627.qmail@web20805.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36022 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Eclipse wrote: > ... I wondered > if a person using a time turner shows up more than > once on the map. If so why doesn't Lupin comment that > he say Harry and Hermonie twice by Hagrid's hut? I > figure a person only shows up once and that would be > for his or her first time though the events. > Lupin saw them on the map during the first "pass." Had he looked at the map during their second pass, he probably would have seen them get Beaky, rescue Black, et cetera i.e. what they did on the second pass. OTOH, they may have shown up in both places on the map at the same time, and Lupin just didn't notice them. He was sort of busy at the time, IIRC. Tex, Wondering if the map has a "drag and drop" feature, so the Marauders can move people around if they are in an inconvenient place. From catlady at wicca.net Mon Mar 4 03:34:50 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 03:34:50 -0000 Subject: Lavendar's rabbit / TimeTurner-MaraudersMap / Chamberpot Room Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36023 Kyrstyne tanie wrote: > she made a good point, Binky hadn't died on the 16th, (but why not? > I mean it shouldn't take an owl that long to get to Hogwarts from > her house. Well, it depends on where she lives, too. There is evidence that Lavendar is Muggle-born, so getting a letter from her parents to her would take more than one owl. (My theory: Post UK to an address on Charing Cross road next door to the Leaky Cauldron, where it is picked up once a day and taken to the Owl Post Office in Diagon Alley, where the outer envelope is opened, the money in the outer envelope is used to pay for the owl, and the inner envelope, addressed to the real recipient (Lavender Brown, Hogwarts School, Scotland) is given to the owl.) Being Muggle-born might also explain why she didn't take Binky to school with her: her parents were ignorant enough to think that the part of the Hogwarts letter that says students may bring a cat OR an owl OR a toad meant what it said, and that she wasn't allowed to bring some other kind of pet. You'd think, tho', that by third year, she'd have seen enough of Ron's rat, Lee's tarantula, and other non-standard pets to know that no one would give her aggravation about bringing her bunny to schoool. Hey, if someone did, she could just say that Binky is a long-eared, vegetarian, jumpy cat. The evidence is when Trelawney tells Harry that he has the Grim: "He could tell that he wasn't the only one who didn't understand; Dean Thomas shrugged at him and Lavender Brown looked puzzled, but nearly everybody else clapped their hands to their mouths in horror." We were outright told that Dean Thomas was raised by Muggles (in CoS: "Dean Thomas, who, like Harry, had grown up with Muggles, ended up closing his eyes and jabbing his wand at the list, then picking the subjects it landed on.") My assumption here is that ALL the wizard-raised students know about the Grim, as Ron did, and some Muggle-born students have already heard of the Grim from friends or reading (as Hermione did), so everyone who didn't know what the Grim is must be Muggle-born. I am not pleased about Lavendar being Muggle-born, as Lavendar Brown strikes me as such a very wizarding name. Eclipse wrote: > I don't know if it's been discussed, but I wondered if a person > using a time turner shows up more than once on the map. If so why > doesn't Lupin comment that he say Harry and Hermione twice by > Hagrid's hut? The Map wouldn't be all that good if it DIDN'T show people who had got there by Time-Turner. So the only explanation I can think of is that Lupin was watching the map So Carefully that once he saw the Trio go into Hagrid's Hut, he stared right at the hut until he saw them leaving it. Of course, then he saw Pettigrew with the Trio and stared straight at the foursome all the way to the Whomping Willow. Once he saw Pettigrew, it's not a big surprise that his eyes didn't drift maybe less than an inch to the H&H who were (also) watching the Trio leave Hagrid's hut. And if he had stared at the hut with enough concentration while waiting for the Trio to emerge, then he could have managed not to see the H&H lurking beside the hut. To me, the bigger mystery is how Fred and George NEVER saw Peter Pettigrew hanging arouund with Ron. S'okay, they had no need to look into the Gryffindor Class of 1998 boys' dorm, so they didn't see Ron in bed with a male name they didn't recognise, but how did they never see Harry, Hermione, Ron, and Peter wandering the Castle together? Tex wrote: > Wondering if the map has a "drag and drop" feature, so the > Marauders can move people around if they are in an inconvenient > place. LOL, but that would make the people suspicious! Eledhwen wrote: > What is up with the room that is mentioned in GoF by Dumbledore, > during the Yule ball? The one that might only be reached when the > person has an exceptionally full bladder. Like Kyrstyne tanie, I thought that room was just a joke, either a joke by Dumbledor or a joke by JKR. But the Comic Relief JKR chat http://www.comicrelief.com/harrysbooks/pages/transcript2.shtml (I found it by Mike's useful site: http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ ) has the following: "Q: If you could travel to Hogwarts for an hour, what would you do there? JKR: Go straight into a certain room, mentioned in book four which has certain magical properties Harry hasn't discovered yet!" And when this statement was being debated, someone made a plausible argument that she was referring to the chamberpot room. Of course, other people made equally plausible arguments for the prefects' bathroom, the little room next to the Great Hall, and the kitchen. From pennylin at swbell.net Mon Mar 4 04:31:04 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 22:31:04 -0600 Subject: Parenting Styles -- More on Molly & the Twins Message-ID: <3C82F888.6050302@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36024 Hi all -- Eileen said: > > > And it makes me very mad somehow that people would think that this > > way of bringing up children is wrong, something that Mrs. Weasley > > really should examine her conscience for, and beg Ron's pardon about. Susanne responded: > > Well, while it might not be wrong, it's certainly only one way of parenting. > > When you give your parents gifts, don't you try to get them something they will like, instead of just anything? > Should you instead think "who cares if they like it, I've done my duty?". > This may a be a bit harsh, but that's what the reverse sounded like to me. That's what it sounded like to me too, Eileen. It is subjective of course -- one's parenting style probably reflects in large measure the way one was parented for example. We don't know if Ron *has* ever said anything to Molly about the color maroon or corned beef. If he has politely noted that he dislikes maroon & prefers blue for example, then I do fault Molly *to some extent*. If Ron's never said anything to her & just grouses about it out of her hearing, then it's really more his problem. Of course, even if he's not directly said, "I hate maroon, I look terrible in it, and I *love* blue," she still might pick up on his preferences I would think. Then again, I've no experience with large families, being one of two kids myself. Maybe parents with tons of kids do lose track of who likes & dislikes what. My mom spent years telling me how good I looked in red but always bought what I preferred in terms of color (I do, as it turns out, look good in red ... but always preferred other colors when I was younger). I think I'm bothered overall more with how Harry seems to get more attention & care from Molly than Ron does. "I chose green because I thought it would bring out the color of your eyes, dear," followed shortly by her terse comments to Ron who was horrified by his own dress robes. Even if maroon *was* the only one available in her price range, she *could* have taken off the lace cuffs for him & perhaps tried to spiff it up somewhat magically (after all, *Ron* is able to scissor off the lace, albeit badly). > > And while forcing someone to eat something they can't stand > may make some people like it later, it works the opposite way > for may others. Yep. Trying to force me to eat green veggies was futile. Call me crazy but I guess I don't get why it would be important for people to force themselves to like every food put before them. We all have likes & dislikes & IMHO, we should be allowed to follow our instincts on something as basic as food. Back to Molly and the Twins (I know this is a few days old, but I haven't been able to respond yet) -- Jo Serenadust said: > Do you really think that there's the slightest chance of the twins > allowing their *mother* choose their careers? She's just being a > typical worrywart mom here, and she IMO knows better than anyone > that they will do as they darn well please once they're out of > Hogwarts. Just wait and see. Yes, but they are in their final year of Hogwarts; now is the time to be making those career decisions. It's time for Molly to let go IMHO. I would think it would be evident that with only one more year of schooling, her constant interference & nagging isn't going to do a darn bit of good & will only cause strife. Yeah, I still have some reservations about Molly's parenting style overall and wouldn't agree that she's portrayed completely positively in all cases. But, that's just my subjective judgment, based on my own experiences as a child and now a parent. :--) Penny From jmmears at prodigy.net Mon Mar 4 04:33:25 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 04:33:25 -0000 Subject: More on Parenting Styles WAS :Re: Snape / Bowman Wright / Ron / Molly / Gred&For In-Reply-To: <1386615302.20020303152113@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36025 > > > Hi, > > Sunday, March 03, 2002, 2:39:12 PM, lucky_kari wrote: > > > And it makes me very mad somehow that people would think that this > > way of bringing up children is wrong, something that Mrs. Weasley > > really should examine her conscience for, and beg Ron's pardon about. > Susanne wrote: > Well, while it might not be wrong, it's certainly only one > way of parenting. > > When you give your parents gifts, don't you try to get them > something they will like, instead of just anything? > Should you instead think "who cares if they like it, I've > done my duty?". > This may a be a bit harsh, but that's what the reverse > sounded like to me. > > It isn't that much of a hardship for a parent to buy the > same shirt in a color that is acceptable to both the parent > and the child (if the choice isn't limited by some rule, > like school uniforms, for example). > And would it have really been such big trouble to take off > the lace, at least? > And why *always* maroon as a color? > If you're looking for cheap clothing, I'm sure it would be > easier to be a little more flexible with the colors, instead > of searching for things in that particular color. > > And while forcing someone to eat something they can't stand > may make some people like it later, it works the opposite way > for may others. > > And there are many other choices for cheap sandwich > material. > > But mostly it *is* a matter a different perceptions, I > guess. It occurs to me in this discussion that nearly everyone is looking at the Molly/Ron corned beef/maroon discussion from the point of view of the child, and not a parent of multiple school-age children. Not to say that the posters themselves are children but just saying that they don't seem to have any personal experience with bringing up children in this age-range (if I'm wrong about this, please let me know). Having left a fairly substantial professional career in order to bring up 2 kids (now 11 and 13), it's really a high priority to me that I *get it right* as much as humanly possible. This *is* my job now. Even so, more than once my kids have come home from school telling me pointedly that I mixed up their sandwiches AGAIN. Yes, I know which one likes pb&j and which one likes ham & cheese, but somehow in the morning chaos with permission slips and bakesale money and band instruments,I screw it up. Now considering that Molly has 4 of them (in PS/SS) to do laundry for, pack for, and get to the train station on time, is it indicative of an indifferent mother to give Ron the wrong sandwiches? (I had visions of Percy groaning over Ron's egg salad, which wound up in his pack) No one has mentioned that when she sends them off in PofA (with Ginny, Harry, & Hermione, too) she *does* remember that Ron doesn't like corned beef. IMO she's just a loving, caring, overworked, underpaid mother who loves all her kids equally, (even if differently) and she gets the important stuff right. Are there any other mothers out there wishing to weigh in on this? Jo Serenadust, who wishes that people would cut Molly a break about the freaking sandwiches, already (acronym Tabouli?) From siskiou at earthlink.net Mon Mar 4 04:58:41 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 20:58:41 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] More on Parenting Styles WAS :Re: Snape / Bowman Wright / Ron / Molly / Gred&For In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12326866226.20020303205841@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36026 Hi, Sunday, March 03, 2002, 8:33:25 PM, serenadust wrote: > Not to say that the posters themselves are children but just saying > that they don't seem to have any personal experience with bringing > up children in this age-range (if I'm wrong about this, please let > me know). I'm 43 years old, with only one child (10), but have a degree in early childhood education, and have worked with many children of varying ages. But I also remember my own childhood very well . And I'm perfectly willing to cut Molly some slack on the sandwiches, but there are many other little things adding to my not 100% positive impression of Molly. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From elfundeb at aol.com Mon Mar 4 05:32:34 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 05:32:34 -0000 Subject: More on Parenting Styles (Ron / Molly) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36027 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" > wrote: > > Yes! There are certain things in Book 1 that troubled me the first > > time I read it and every time since. "She always forgets I don't > > like corned beef." > > > > Adrienne goddessa replied to Debbie (me): > > > > > With seven kids... I'm not too surprised. Can you imagine keeping > > > track of all the different favorite colors, favorite foods, > > > favorite whatevers? > > Catlady again (I think): > > Those kids are her JOB, she should know them as well as > I > > know the databases of the system that I support at MY job. > Eileen replied: > I have to admit that these remarks and many others that have > characterized this exchange have really, really bothered me. I had to > think hard why this would be so, but in the end, I think it really > comes down to, once again, people's preference for parenting styles. > > It would never have occurred to me that parents should know their > kids' favourite colours. > > And it makes me very mad somehow that people would think that this > way of bringing up children is wrong, something that Mrs. Weasley > really should examine her conscience for, and beg Ron's pardon about. > > > My comments on Mrs. Weasley's parenting, from whence this discussion sprang were not intended as an overall indictment of her parenting skills but rather to point out that Ron gets lost in the shuffle and does not get the kind of attention we see her paying to her other children and to Harry. Some of the other posters have commented that she seems to adapt her style to the different needs of Percy and the twins, but I don't get the feeling that she has time to focus on Ron enough to know what he needs (and we know what does not motivate Ron is reminders of how much more successful his brothers were, but her treatment of Percy does exactly that). That Molly supplies Ron with maroon clothing that he hates is, to me, just one small indicator that she doesn't know him as well as her other children. (This bothers me more than the sandwiches, which can be attributed to corned beef being the only thing on hand, the chaos of sending four children off to school -- there's enough chaos at my house getting two children off to school for a day, not an entire term, etc.) It's the apparent lack of attention that troubles me, and therefore it troubles me more that she lavishes attention on the famous Harry Potter, even though it's natural for her to reach out to Harry, who really needs some mothering, and it's also evident from what she does for Harry at the end of GoF that one of her strengths is her ability to provide comfort to a troubled child (probably an adult as well). We also see hints of this in comments such as Ron's where he offers to make Hagrid tea (I believe this is in PoA when he's upset over Buckbeak) because "it's what my Mum does." But I'm concerned that Ron isn't getting what he needs from Molly and it could create problems. I think Ron needs more support from Molly of the kind that Harry gets. In particular, what I think Ron needs, more than his favorite sandwich or non-maroon clothes, is encouragement. He needs to be told that he's not a failure if he's not Head Boy or Quidditch Captain or a joke shop entrepreneur. What he doesn't need is for Molly to make pointed comments about how there won't be any more Head Boys in the family after Percy. Moreover, Ron needs to be taken seriously by somebody-- anybody. GoF is full of subtle put-downs of Ron by various other characters as well. Just to name a few: At the World Cup, Ron asks why the Death- Eaters weren't pleased to see the Dark Mark, and Bill responds "Use your brains, Ron." I don't think his question was silly at all. Later on, Sirius gives Hermione great credit for associating Crouch Sr.'s treatment of Winky with his true character at Ron's expense ("She's got the measure of Crouch better than you have, Ron"), but I think Ron was right that Hermione's entire focus was on elf rights, not Crouch Sr.'s character, since she didn't have the insight to realize that Crouch Sr. would not have mercy on his son. And of course there's Moody/Crouch, who anointed everyone as Auror prospects except for Ron, who by this time is becoming desperate to throw out one idea, any idea, that will be treated with the respect that Harry and Hermione receive as a matter of course. All of these episodes just feed Ron's inferiority complex. In fact, I wonder if adult readers who are less than enamored of Ron are influenced by the relative respect each member of the Trio receives from others. (I don't want to denigrate either Harry or Hermione here, both of whom deserve the respect they receive, but they have faults too, and they're not always right [for support see the Crookshanks and Binky debates], but they get so many good vibes from the adult characters that it's tempting to give full credit to their assessments.) Of course, it's always possible that JKR is so focused on Harry that she ignores Ron. That's the only explanation I have for Bill's saying goodbye only to Mrs. Weasley and Harry at the end of GoF before going off to alert Arthur. Debbie, who has a 7-year-old Ron-clone at home and therefore cannot possibly dislike Ron, frustrating as he can be at times, and therefore feels compelled to mother him and/or defend him, as necessary, relying on others to provide the negative feedback From Cornet83 at aol.com Mon Mar 4 03:40:55 2002 From: Cornet83 at aol.com (mariahisabel) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 03:40:55 -0000 Subject: Sir Nicholas Porpington (AKA Nearly Headless Nick) Re: The Riddle House Riddles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36028 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Whirdy at a... wrote: > This leads to another thread in the Pensieve - why are the > > Magicals so fearful of the Muggles? snip While reading this post a totally new idea occured to me. Now it may not be a new idea at all, it may have been discussed at length and I just dont know about but it raised a question to me and maybe sombody can answer it --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rycar007" wrote: > Somehow I'm led to think an unexpected shotgun blast would do a bit > more damage than a public burning. The Magical community can do > something if they know they're going to be executed or whatever, they > can ward themselves if planned. What about nearly headless nick? Dont you think he probably would have known that he was going to be executed and come up with some magical way to overcome his difficulty? Apparate out of the dungeon or wherever he was, put some anti severing charm on himself or something? to me it just doesnt make sense that he wouldnt have been able to protect himself in anyway, even if his wand had been confiscted (other magical folk can preform magic without a wand regularly or because of high emotions during a stressful time ). and he must have been a wizard because otherwise why would he be hanging out in Hogwarts after his death? Somehow I dont think that ole "hoggy hoggy hogwarts" it the hottest spot for all ghosts to be. So why didnt he protect himself if he knew about his impending death? Anyone interested in giving me their ideas or clueing me in that duh! everyones debated that already? mariahisabel(who just now realizes that someone must have thought of this before and now loses that feeling of genius) From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Mon Mar 4 07:41:16 2002 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 4 Mar 2002 07:41:16 -0000 Subject: File - VFAQ.htm Message-ID: <1015227676.84375109.15993.m12@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36029 An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Mon Mar 4 07:41:16 2002 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 4 Mar 2002 07:41:16 -0000 Subject: File - hbfile.html Message-ID: <1015227676.84375798.15993.m12@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36030 An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From skelkins at attbi.com Mon Mar 4 08:29:26 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 08:29:26 -0000 Subject: Malicious vs. mischievous (was Re: Lupin's Edge/Twins' Edge?) In-Reply-To: <20020303231502.53986.qmail@web20409.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36031 Hi, Ama. Wow. Such timing! You caught me at a kind of difficult time for these questions, as I'm actually working on a truly massive Percy post right now that does touch on a number of these issues -- and probably in much greater detail than anyone could possibly ever want to read about them! ;-) But I'll try to give some short replies right now. Ama asked: > I had trouble understanding how the twins' teasing, > especially of their siblings, could be construed as > malicious. It then occurred to me(!) that perhaps I > just don't get your use of the word malicious. I was using malicious to mean "with ill-will, with the intention of causing harm." Mischievousness is *quite* another matter. I've no problems with mischief. I've been known to wreak a bit of that myself, from time to time. > Now, there ARE malicious pranksters, but IMHO, the > twins' pranks stem from a love of mischief, not > malice. They like harrassing people, and they're > often inconsiderate, but malice implies intent to > cause pain. I don't think the twins really have it in > for anyone. I agree with you that in general, the twins' love of pranks derives from a sense of mischief and not from malice. I do think that the twins are often insensitive, and that they therefore do often cause harm without intending to, but that is a *very* different thing than malice, which as you said, requires an active intent to cause pain. In CoS, for example, when Percy points out to the twins that their teasing of Ginny is really genuinely upsetting her, rather than cheering her up as they had intended, then they stop it at once. Their teasing of their siblings is not generally intended to cause real harm, and I do not see them as malicious people on the whole. But I think that by the beginning of PoA, the twins really *do* have it in for Percy, and that they really *are* trying to get at him. Certainly by the beginning of GoF, I see genuine malice in the twins' actions against Percy. Percy's relationship with the rest of his family has been in a steady state of decline ever since the first book, and by the time we reach GoF I see a great deal of genuine animosity there, a great deal of anger and bitterness and resentment festering under the surface of the Weasley family dynamic. What was once good-natured has by Book Four become not at all friendly; things that were previously merely sources of tension have become rather serious schismatics. It's really not at *all* One Big Happy Weasley Family in GoF, if you ask me. Tensions are running very high in that household on a number of different fronts. We see it in Molly's rants against the twins (and in front of company, too!); we see it in the twins' own frustration with their family's inability to support them in pursuing the future that they've chosen for themselves; we hear it in Ron's tone every time that Percy comes up in conversation throughout the course of the entire novel. And Percy himself isn't getting along with anyone, not even his parents, who were once his allies. He quarrels with Arthur over politics, and even Molly, once Percy's most fervent champion within the family dynamic, yells at him at one point when she thinks that he's criticizing his father. Things are getting tense, and things are getting ugly, and I think that the twins' treatment of Percy reflects this. I wrote (and Ama quoted): > >I don't think it's accidental that they go after > >Percy on precisely the same points for which he is > >always being praised by their mother, or for which > >they themselves are always being *criticized* by > >their mother. Ama wrote: > Percy has always been perceived as an insufferable > prig. No, I don't agree that he has. In PS/SS, he certainly shows a tendency to pomposity and bombast, but this isn't *nearly* as notable or as overwhelming an aspect of his character as it will become in later volumes. Nor do I see any indication that Percy's family has always perceived him as an insufferable prig. Far to the contrary: Percy's good opinion is something that Ron values highly enough for it to be presented as a major part of his *triumph* at the end of the novel, and Fred and George both evidently value Percy's company enough to bother bullying him into spending Christmas with them, rather than with his Prefect friends. Family or no family, I don't really think that they would have bothered to do that if they had really considered him to be an "insufferable prig." Mind you, by the time we reach GoF -- possibly even by time we've hit PoA -- I think that the Weasleys for the most part *have* begun to think of Percy as an insufferable prig. But then, can you really imagine Fred and George trying to convince Percy to spend some quality family time with them in PoA? Or in GoF? The relationships within that family have been *changing,* IMO. And not at all for the better -- particularly where Percy is concerned. > But Ron, in SS, confides in Harry about having a lot to measure > up to, and notes that F&G get good grades. And yet Percy was > already a target way back then. Was he really all that much more of a target than any of the twins' other siblings at that point? More than Ginny, for example? I don't know if I really think that he was. The twins don't seem to me to really start gunning for Percy in particular until sometime in CoS. When Ron is telling Harry about having a lot to measure up to on the train, he seems if anything *more* envious of Bill and Charlie and the Twins than he does of Percy. The animosity which will later come to characterize Ron's entire attitude towards Percy is strikingly absent in PS/SS. I suspect that the twins' particular animosity towards him hadn't quite kicked in yet either. > So it's not Percy's academic achievements, it's his attitude, > revealed by his penchant for bombast, that convinces the twins ol' > Percy needs taking down a peg. And he does! Well, if by "taking Percy down a peg" one means "making mock of him," then I'd say that this is precisely the sort of thing that actually *encourages* him in his penchant for bombast. The pomposity and the puffing and the self-aggrandizement all seem to be how Percy responds to feeling insecure and unhappy. The relatively content Percy of PS/SS is not nearly as pompous or as unpleasant as the secretive and worried adolescent Percy of CoS, who in turn is *still* more bearable than the utterly stressed-out NEWT-bound Percy of PoA. By the time we get to GoF, Percy is feeling genuinely alienated and unhappy; he has therefore become completely insufferable and unlikeable and impossible to be around. The way I read it, Percy and the twins are caught in a kind of a trap when it comes to their relationship. The less secure Percy feels, the more he struts; the more he struts, the more the twins pick on him; the more the twins pick on him, the less secure he feels. It's a vicious cycle, IMO. > I believe if the twins really were malicious, if they > had really taken their mother's words to heart, they'd > have become saboteurs. Yet in GoF we never see the > twins stealing and altering Percy's homework or > destroying his cauldron reports; instead, they limit > their pranks to childishly bewitching his badge and > sending him dragon dung at work, hardly spiteful IMO. Well, there are degrees of malice, certainly. In PoA, the twins do not, it is true, try to sabotage Percy's schoolwork or (heaven forbid!) his NEWTS. They don't torture him or murder his owl or throw him down a well either. ;-) But the level of harrassment that we see them engaging in when it comes to the badge at the beginning of PoA most certainly did strike me as having crossed the border from the realms of good- natured teasing into the lands of genuine malice. The twins can be insensitive, true, but they are not *that* insensitive. They're badgering Percy into a near nervous-breakdown with their antics at the beginning of PoA -- he's beside himself with agitation -- and I'm pretty sure that they not only knew that, but that they *liked* it. Again, I think that Molly's constant carping on the twins plays a big part here. I think that the twins are angry and frustrated with what they perceive as a lack of respect for their talents, and that Percy stands as the all-too-obvious outlet for this anger. I also think that Percy's own issues make him very difficult to like at times, and that this also makes him a tempting target. I do not see the twins as Evil. But I do think that in the last two books, there is genuine malice -- by which I mean, a real desire to cause harm -- motivating their actions against Percy. I do see their behavior as rather spiteful. (And BTW, if someone sent me dragon dung at my brand new desk job at which I was very eager to make a good impression, then I think that I would most *certainly* consider that an act of sabotage! But I don't believe for a moment that the twins thought of it that way when they planned it out, so I agree with you that spiteful or not, they are still merely pranksters, and not saboteurs.) > I think that F&G's prank playing is a coping > mechanism; like Percy's ambition and Ron's temper, > it's their way of dealing with poverty (and it may > very well be their way out, if the joke shop gets off > the ground!) I agree. And it is certainly unfortunate that their coping mechanism should interact so very badly with Percy's -- although I tend to think that Percy's coping mechanism isn't so much his ambition per se as it is his "puffing," his assumption of that rather desperate and pathetic and utterly unconvincing air of self-importance that he seems to fall back on whenever he is feeling uncertain of himself. > Perhaps they think laughter is the best medicine and because it > works for them, it will also cure everyone's ailments-Percy's > bigheadedness especially, Ginny's fear is another. I certainly believe that the twins' motives towards Ginny are well-meaning. I believe that their intentions towards Percy in PS/SS are kindly. By PoA, however, I don't really think that's the case any longer. > They may be perceived as thoughtless, but they're well-meaning > too. Thus I can't see their actions as malicious and therefore > make the distinction between malicious and mischievous > pranksters. Hmmm. Perhaps I'm just a bit more willing to forgive malice than you are? Even people who are on the whole well-meaning can still act with malice, and often *do,* particularly when they are angry. Harry himself gets quite a good number of malicious moments within the books, but he is still an exceptionally well-meaning character overall. I don't think that the twins are *utterly* malicious pranksters in the least. Feeding the Canary Cream to Neville, for example, may have been a bit unkind, but I don't think that it was intended that way -- I don't think that it was intentionally malicious. But I do think that malice does motivate a number of their pranks -- the toffee incident with Dudley leaps to mind -- and that this tendency is particularly evident when it comes to their harrassment of Percy. -- Elkins From lmccabe at sonic.net Mon Mar 4 08:26:43 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (linda_mccabe) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 08:26:43 -0000 Subject: Was: Sirius' laughter,(Voldemort's corpse and a Dumbledore goof?) In-Reply-To: <01e801c1c103$2be560c0$d4c71bce@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36032 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" wrote: One explanation for Sirius Black being found laughing like a loon when the Aurors swooped down on him after Peter Pettigrew got away has not, as far as I know, been put forward: A Cheering Charm. Athena writes: Eric, I must admit that your line of reasoning got me to think. I'm going to take your premise and tweak it just a little. I don't think it was a cheering charm, according to cannon in the PoA p. 294, the students left the classroom grinning broadly with a feeling of great contentment. My vote instead is for the Tickling Charm that Harry used on Malfoy in CofS in the Duelling club. (p. 192) Harry used the Rictusempra! charm and Draco fell to his knees and gasping for breath. I can picture Sirius forced into laughing by the tickling charm and trying to get his wand to focus on Pettigrew, except that Wormtail is now moving about wildly getting people's attention by yelling about how Sirius betrayed James and Lily. Then Pettigrew magics the sewer cover to slide open and casts the hex that blows the bystanders to smithereens. Sirius wasn't able to connect with him due to the shaking of his arm with the tickling. except, except - Sirius doesn't mention that Wormtail did any other magic except for the explosion while holding a wand behind his back. (p. 363) Maybe he was embarrassed that he succombed to the juvenile tickling charm which allowed Pettigrew to murder so many people. (Heck even if Wormtail wasn't the greatest of wizards, he should have been able to do the tickling charm if Harry in his second year could do it with ease on Malfoy.) However, I'm going to throw out a theory regarding that day that I've thought of that I don't think has been mentioned here before. That is that Pettigrew went down the sewer and *then* severed his finger. He allowed his blood to drip on his robes and then he did a banishing charm to throw out the robe and the severed finger. Then he transformed into a rat and hid to make sure that his plot worked and that he had successfully framed Sirius. (Then again maybe he just turned his ratty little tail and ran away at this point.) After a nasty explosion that killed all those Muggles with bodies everywhere and people screaming, it would have been chaos and for a robe and a finger to fly out of the sewer a minute after the explosion would not have been noticed. I guess I've always had trouble envisioning how someone could just cut their finger off while holding their hands behind their back. It makes more sense to try and do your cover up *afterwards* by chucking the bloodied robes and finger rather than do it before you cause an explosion. (I tried checking and couldn't find any mention in previous posts of Pettigrew/wormtail and banishing charms.) I think that it is most likely that if Sirius was indeed laughing (and it wasn't just slander made up by the Evil Fudge) then it was that reality was beginning to sink in on him that his best friends were murdered and he had convinced them to trust That Little Rat and now he was being denied his vengeance and instead was going to be blamed for it all. Okay, so here's a couple questions that I've just come up with after reading many posts and haven't seen discussed. If Voldemort was ripped from his body as he states in GoF p. 653 - then what became of his corpse? Wouldn't the body of Voldemort be a source of incredibly Dark Magic? I wonder how it would be disposed of? Other posts had wondered about the burials of James and Lily, but what about the Big Bad Guy's body? And one thing that's nagged me and maybe I should just leave it as JK wanted a dramatic scene and leave it at that, but why do you think that Dumbledore would announce to Karkaroff that Snape had been a spy? p 591. One would think you'd try to keep the identity of your spies secret even after The Fall. And who's to say if there's a large roomfull of witches and wizards sitting in judgement that all of them are trustworthy to keep secrets such as that? Instead, I would think that it would have been more secure for Crouch to say - thank you for that name also, we will have further investigation on that. And then Moody could have growled to Dumbledore again about Snape being a DE. Dumbledore could then remind him gently and quietly that Snape had turned spy for him at great personal risk and the Ministry is aware of that. They will not pursue that charge due to my testimony on where Snapes true loyalties lie. So is that something that Dumbledore shouldn't have done or am I just being too damned picky? Athena - hoping her second post is found to be adequate to the moderators From aiz24 at hotmail.com Mon Mar 4 12:22:43 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 07:22:43 -0500 Subject: The real vampire Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36033 Hi all, Many of us enjoy speculating on the possible undead status of a certain Potions Master, especially because it's a sure-fire way to wind Amanda Lewanski up. And indeed there are bountiful small hints that fit JKR's sneaky foreshadowing technique--references to bats and swooping, mirrors and vampire essays. But those of us who would like to catch a character being postbiological should cast our net a bit wider. IIRC, there is only one character in 1000+ pages who is explicitly likened to a vampire. Peruse, if you will, this passage from PA 3: "Harry looked into the shadowed eyes of Sirius Black, the only part of the sunken face that seemed alive. Harry had never met a vampire, but he had seen pictures of them in his Defense Against the Dark Arts classes, and Black, with his waxy white skin, looked just like one." Hmmmm . . . Amy Z exits snickering --------------------------------------------------------- "We didn't give it to him because he's a Muggle!" said Fred indignantly. "No, we gave it to him because he's a great bullying git," said George. "Isn't he, Harry?" "Yeah, he is, Mr. Weasley," said Harry earnestly. --Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire ---------------------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Mar 4 12:46:35 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 12:46:35 -0000 Subject: Twins/Percy/Ron/Molly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36034 Now.. Twins & Ron see Percy as "too much of himself" - and all that. It's not like Percy would never wish to tease his younger siblings. It's just that he's chosen to annoy his brothers by using cultivated, school standard speech and extremely calm tone, repeating the words of their teachers etc. I recall doing that sort with my little sister - using standardised school-like teacher-language *because* it annoyed her. Just thought Percy might have done the same with the twins/Ron. Twins respond with pranks. Ron complains. And Twins - well they're the good-kind of pranksters. They live to make people laugh. They can also laugh at themselves (the beards) - and can't see why some people can't do the same. They and Percy are having sibling-fight: Nothing serious, really. Twins play pranks, Percy responds by maliticiously following rules (including grammar), and by refusing to laugh/get angry. The twins target on Percy because he hasn't reacted yet (except by telling them off) - they want to see if Percy has emotions. And when it comes to Ron/Molly - she does care of Ron and others. It's just that Ron tends to complain about things he loves the most - except when it's *his* before anyone else or still new. The corned meat... She's making sandwiches for four kids getting on train, one that stays at home, husband going to work and herself. She just made everyone the *same* kind of sandwich. Besides, that's the kind of meat that stays good for longest... It may well be that their fridge was near empty and she was going shopping after Ron & others left for Hogwarts... She took special care in Book#4 about Ron's food. To compensate about the dress robe, perhaps? Percy got a reward for becoming a prefect, Ron got a reward for saving Ginny (his new wand)... Ron says he wants to be a celebrity, but I'm not buying it. He'd be complaining just as much if he were, he'd just choose other things to complain about. From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Mar 4 12:59:20 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 12:59:20 -0000 Subject: The real vampire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36035 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > Peruse, if you will, this > passage from PA 3: > > "Harry looked into the shadowed eyes of Sirius Black, the only part of the > sunken face that seemed alive. Harry had never met a vampire, but he had > seen pictures of them in his Defense Against the Dark Arts classes, and > Black, with his waxy white skin, looked just like one." > > Hmmmm . . . LOL! Sirius' skin is white due to lack of sunlight - and he went south to *enjoy Sun*. So Sirius isn't one... nor is he a Grim, though Harry once took him for one... Snape... I think he's a psychopath, with his lack of empathy, his lack of emotion other than irritation or anger. Voldemort's one, too - maybe all or most of the Slytherins are. Psycopaths *can* be extremely charming and convincing - and totally unemotional and cruel. They're very good at it... Just saw a document of them in TV... From jwh at comp.leeds.ac.uk Mon Mar 4 13:05:19 2002 From: jwh at comp.leeds.ac.uk (jaymzhuk) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 13:05:19 -0000 Subject: Lilly and Severus siblings? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36036 Sorry if this has been posted already - did a quick search of the archive and couldn't find anything. It's been point out that "Severus Snape" is an anagram of "Perseus Evans" - is it possible he is Lilly (and Petunia's) brother? Wild theory runs: Somehow Perseus hooks up with Voldemort, thinks the whole name change thing is cool, and works out an anagram, which he becomes known by to everyone... Trying to distance himself from Petunia, even (in a nicely ironic way). In any case, he's essentialy a mini-DE at Hogwarts, and hates James at the crew for being 'good' - especially when Lilly gets sucked into it.. his little sister running around with Potter et al, and then - horror of horrors - starting to date him and eventually marry him. However, when Voldemeort bumps off James (no problem there) but then Lilly - that's too much for Snape. Perhaps he'd personally requested the V. didn't kill Lilly? It's probably not common knowledge that they're brother/sister, and Snape doesn't mention it - but he realises that V. et al are *really* bad, and he goes to Dumbledore spilling all the beans. Might explain why Petunia is so anti-magic (her teddy bear turned into a snake by Snape?) Ok, it's a little weak, I know - maybe Snape was seperate from the Evan's at birth, or something. James From adatole at yahoo.com Mon Mar 4 13:07:36 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (adatole) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 13:07:36 -0000 Subject: The real vampire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36037 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" wrote: > Snape... I think he's a psychopath, with his lack of empathy, his lack > of emotion other than irritation or anger. Voldemort's one, too - > maybe all or most of the Slytherins are. Psycopaths *can* be > extremely charming and convincing - and totally unemotional and cruel. > They're very good at it... Just saw a document of them in TV... ***************** I totally disagree!! While I do not believe Snape will ever cuddle up to Harry and give him a big hug ("You know Harry, it has killed me inside to be so mean to you all these years"), I do think that Snape understand the situation and that he is playing role in the great game to keep Harry alive. JK likes things logical. That's not literal, or else magic couldn't exist in her books. But logical is important. It is illogical to believe that, once his name was cleared, Hagrid would not be able to move on with his life (ie: take a teaching position at the school he's loved when it became available). etc. The lesson (IMHO) that is here is - some people are nasty and foul- tempered, but still know right from wrong and will do "good" even when it means they have to work with people they dislike. That goes both ways - Snapes opinion of others (probably most of the staff), circumstances (his teaching position), and his boss - and for those around him (Lupin and Black come to mind at the end of GoF). It's a simple reality of life that JK wants to drive home. Just like the fact that a Mother's Love can protect her son from the worst curse ever. I spent a long time trying to find more "technical" reasons why Harry survived, but a friend drove it home to me. There is no other reason. A mother's love should be reason enough. Simple truths. A Mother's Love can protect. You have to work with people you don't like sometimes to get the job done. Leon From adhara_black at yahoo.co.uk Mon Mar 4 13:34:22 2002 From: adhara_black at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Adhara=20Black?=) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:34:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The real vampire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020304133422.68475.qmail@web21305.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36038 Amy wrote: Many of us enjoy speculating on the possible undead status of a certain Potions Master... But those of us who would like to catch a characterbeing postbiological should cast our net a bit wider: "Harry had never met a vampire, but he had seen pictures of them in his Defense Against the Dark Arts classes, and Black, with his waxy white skin, looked just like one." Adhara writes: I don't think Snape OR Black can be vampires. Assuming vampires have to sustain themselves by drinking blood (and preferably that of virgins) -as I believe is generally accepted- a. Dumbledore couldn't risk having a vampire for a teacher with hundreds of young girls under the same roof. and b. Black would have died in Azkaban as I somehow suspect the Dementors would not put virgin's blood on the prison's menu. Furthermore: Vampires are obliged to sleep during the day which would interfere with a school timetable. Snape couldn't manage that. Vampires don't have reflections or can be caught on film. Harry was given a photo of Sirius with his parents taken at James' and Lily's wedding. Finally, Black wouldn't have taken a holiday in an exotic place down South after PoA. - Adhara. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Mar 4 13:50:18 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 13:50:18 -0000 Subject: Nicole's theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36039 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "christi0469" wrote: > I was very curious when Dumbledore brought up the existence of > Trelawney's first real prediction, and I too thought it probably had > something to do with why Voldemort wanted to kill Harry. This > theoretical prediction could have been the catalyst for Peter's > defection. I wonder if it could also have been the catalyst for > Snape's defection. We know that he defected sometime before > Voldemort's downfall, and IMHO he would have needed time to prove > his loyalty to Dumbledore. His timing could certainly have coincided > with Peter's. I suspect that Voldemort's reason for targetting Harry > (or Harry and James) is going to be extremely significant; > unfortunately, I also suspect that JKR will save it for the seventh > book, when Harry becomes of age. > It probably will be. Voldemort may well be direct lineage from marriage of Salazar Slytherin and Rowena Ravenclaw and Harry similarly direct lineage of the marriage of Godric Gryffindor and Helga Hufflepuff. And what would this mean? If Harry dies, Hogwarts would be Voldemort's property due inheritance - the only place so far that was *safe*! If Voldemort dies, it's Harry's! It's just that Harry's a minor - and thus cannot legally be in control... From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Mon Mar 4 15:03:44 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 09:03:44 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The real vampire References: Message-ID: <3C838CD0.3A8FD2E4@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36040 Amy Z wrote: > > Hi all, > > Many of us enjoy speculating on the possible undead status of a certain > Potions Master, especially because it's a sure-fire way to wind Amanda > Lewanski up. And indeed there are bountiful small hints that fit JKR's > sneaky foreshadowing technique--references to bats and swooping, mirrors and > vampire essays. > > But those of us who would like to catch a character being postbiological > should cast our net a bit wider. IIRC, there is only one character in 1000+ > pages who is explicitly likened to a vampire. Peruse, if you will, this > passage from PA 3: > > "Harry looked into the shadowed eyes of Sirius Black, the only part of the > sunken face that seemed alive. Harry had never met a vampire, but he had > seen pictures of them in his Defense Against the Dark Arts classes, and > Black, with his waxy white skin, looked just like one." > > Hmmmm . . . Great! now we have to contend with Black sucking the blood of young children...or do we? IIRC, vampires suck blood for their food, but in GoF, Harry Hermione and Ron take all sorts of food (chicken wings?) to Black in the mountains, and he devours it. Unless he's a special sort of vampire who can eat other kinds of food. -Katze From karen at infobreak.net Mon Mar 4 15:02:22 2002 From: karen at infobreak.net (sirius_kase) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 15:02:22 -0000 Subject: Fw: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fred and George's wager on the Quidditch World Cup In-Reply-To: <005801c1c2ed$33f338a0$483e68d5@jody> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36041 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jedi Knight Jo" wrote: > Hi, I just joined so I thought I'd better find something to comment on. > > >>I just have to add my agreement to the bunch. There was no point > spread, no "grey area" that they could hope to fit into. They called > the end of the match with prescient accuracy. IMHO, it has to be more > than a coincidence.<< > > I always just thought that as avid Quidditch fans, Fred and George knew what they were talking about because they'd seen the teams or read results. The Irish team are clearly better overall than the Bulgarians, but the Bulgarians have the better seeker in Krum.. > --Jo I don't think f&G had any inside information that wouldn't have been available to any avid Quidditch fans. They understood the Irish team and Krum well enough to know that that ending was possible even if wasn't probably. IIRC, it was still a long shot. What F&G knew for sure was that there meager life savings were nowhere near enough to start a business and even betting on the most likely outcome wouldn't have resulted in enough. It was a "save the orphanage" scenario where they needed a certain large amount of money and a lessor amount was no better than no money at all, so they bet according to their needs. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Mon Mar 4 15:24:46 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:24:46 EST Subject: anagrams, snape and animagi/ Paranoia and flying hedgehogs Message-ID: <129.d72c816.29b4ebbe@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36042 Dave replies to Mmgardin > > m> I've also been thinking that avada kedavra might be part of an > m> anagram but I haven't been able to come up with anything yet. > > Neither was WordWeb (nothing even slightly meaningful, > anyway). > Sorry if this is simplistic, but isn't it simply a horrible distortion of abracadabra, the most innocent, childish expression of a spell, into the worst and most evil of all spells, via association with the word cadaver? Cindy: >Cindy (getting a little paranoid about who might be a DE) That's OK, Cindy. It was precisely for people like you ( and me) that I proposed the Order of the Flying Hedgehog. As I've said before, I think paranoia at this point of the game is a reasonable response. Seriously. I do. If JKR's doing her job, then we should feel as paranoid as the wizarding community in the face of the next Voldy War. Alexander: >Alexander Lomski, >(Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), >who is seeking for his old sparring partners to flame each >other once again... ;) How could I resist the challenge? ( For the innocent, the Flying Hedgehog thing came out of some exchanges between Alexander and myself regarding paranoia (principally mine and Cindy's, IIRC) and the casting of aspersions (unwarranted, according to Alexander) on people like Bagman....And Fudge, of course, although we hadn't started on him then.) Constant vigilance! Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From margdean at erols.com Mon Mar 4 16:17:40 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 11:17:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: anagrams, snape and animagi/ Paranoia and flying hedgehogs References: <129.d72c816.29b4ebbe@aol.com> Message-ID: <3C839E24.67A5EE75@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36043 Edblanning at aol.com wrote: > > Dave replies to Mmgardin > > > > > m> I've also been thinking that avada kedavra might be part of an > > m> anagram but I haven't been able to come up with anything yet. > > > > Neither was WordWeb (nothing even slightly meaningful, > > anyway). > > Sorry if this is simplistic, but isn't it simply a horrible distortion of > abracadabra, the most innocent, childish expression of a spell, into the > worst and most evil of all spells, via association with the word cadaver? Other way about, actually. From what I understand, "avada kedavra" is Aramaic (?) for "let it be destroyed," and is the =original= form of what was later garbled into "abracadabra" -- which was used, by the way, as a charm to cure illness, the disease being the object of destruction. I've seen pictures of the word written out as a descending pyramid, a letter lopped off the end on each successive line, like this: A B R A C A D A B R A A B R A C A D A B R A B R A C A D A B A B R A C A D A A B R A C A D A B R A C A A B R A C A B R A A B R A B A You wore this on a bit of paper and it was supposed to diminish the illness as well. Now, using this as a death spell -- that =is= perverse, and just the sort of nasty idea Voldy would come up with. --Margaret Dean From huntleyl at mssm.org Tue Mar 5 05:00:57 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:00:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] BBC article mention of H/Hr SHIP mentions Message-ID: <000001c1c437$1006a1c0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 36044 Alright, I remember a few weeks (?) ago, there was a short discussion about a *misled* news article that stated that Harry and Hermione would develop a relationship in GoF. However, if any mention of such assertions being made in respects to the OotP, I missed them. Anyway, I found this at the bottom of an article on BBC News. "Harry has already been interested in a "quidditch" team-mate in Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire, the fourth book in the series - but will now develop more of an interest in Hermione, one of his best friends. " While I doubt that the BBC has anything special -- or particularly true -- here, I'm wondering -- where is this rumor coming from? Does it have any basis in truth? I find it hard to believe that JKR would reveal anything like this concerning a yet unpublished installment, but so many people seem to be *so sure* about it. Harrumph. They're kids, aren't they? I mean, I know that hormones are taking effect, but *grumbles*...*I* never went in for any of that gushy-feely stuff when I was that age. *sigh*, oh well. Ships JKR has promised us, so ships there shall be. Logically, I think R/Hr is pretty much inevitable, but I *really, really* hope I'm wrong. The idea just makes me shudder -- and H/G *makes whining noise in the back of her throat* No, please no. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tabouli at unite.com.au Mon Mar 4 16:48:22 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 03:48:22 +1100 Subject: Dastardly Deeds Drawer, Molly & Ron Message-ID: <002b01c1c39c$855773a0$7f33c2cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 36045 Catlady: > "Harry could see that they contained details of every pupil Filch had ever punished. Fred and George Weasley had an entire drawer to themselves." I should have realised then that if it were EVERY student Filch had punished, James Potter and Sirius Black should ALSO have an entire drawer to themselves, and Harry would have been interested if he had seen the name James Potter.< You know, there's a potential plot device here. Who knows what light could be shed on Snape, Florence, Filch, Tom Riddle, Hagrid and sundry other mysterious pasts if only JKR would send someone up to forage in that file! Surely Dobby, at least, could sneak into Filch's office and start rummaging... >Jo Serenadust, who wishes that people would cut Molly a break about the freaking sandwiches, already (acronym Tabouli?)< Perhaps those who speak out in support of Molly's mothering could hang up an: I.M.P.I.S.H. L.L.A.M.A. D.R.A.P.E. (Impoverished Molly's Parenting Isn't So Harsh! Lousy Lunches And Maroon Apparel Don't Render A Parent Evil)(or just LLAMADRAPE) Me, I'm somewhere in the middle. I'd say Molly's kids feel able to take their parents' loyalty and love for granted, which is a sign of good parenting in my book. Sure, Molly yells and rants, and her children fear her wrath, but they don't fear being rejected and abandoned and abused, or sent away to some hideous boarding school (uh, hang on...). All the same, I'm inclined to think Ron is a touch neglected, mostly because he's caught between a horde of successful, confident and/or otherwise highly noticeable older brothers and a baby sister. Sixth child born after trouble-making twins syndrome. I don't think he feels unloved or unwanted, just undistinguished and insecure, due to constantly being overshadowed by others. Could the touchiness about his poverty be linked to a feeling that there's not enough to go around in his family on other fronts? Not enough *attention* to go around, perhaps? People I've known from big families, especially the youngest couple of children, often seem to bond with one of the older siblings, who does a little "mentoring" (parenting, even). Percy and Ginny, maybe? Percy does seem protective of her in CoS. OTOH, we don't see evidence of an older brother mentor for Ron, unless Charlie filled that role before his dragon days (he does seem marginally more close to Charlie than Bill, and certainly appears to have little time for Percy). Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aiz24 at hotmail.com Mon Mar 4 15:58:40 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 10:58:40 -0500 Subject: Evil Fudge, Complex Snape, Loads o' Weasleys, "halfblood," early magic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36046 Paranoid!Cindy wrote: > I see Supreme Evil DE Fudge > because some of his actions (his behavior at the entrance to the > maze) can't be squared with that of bumbling bureaucrat. His behavior at the entrance to the maze fits with his being a Supremely Evil DE, but it fits just fine with his being a bumbling bureaucrat as well. Isn't that what's so good about it? He tries to get Harry into the castle and he tells Dumbledore to talk to the Diggorys; both are equally compatible with an Evil Plotting Fudge and with an innocent Fudge. Cindy adds this point: >If someone suddenly appeared holding the arm of a dead person, the *last* >thing I'd try to do is pry that person's fingers off of the corpse. Fudge was in Magical Law Enforcement during Voldemort's heyday; I doubt he is queasy about corpses. I wouldn't avoid touching the corpse either, for that matter. I *am* a bit queasy, but yeesh, I've touched dead people before. Plenty of people do it all the time: anyone in medicine or emergency work, undertakers, ministers. And in most cultures still, and ours until very recently, people routinely tend to their own dead. Nyarth's reviewer wrote: >Snape's a multi-faceted mystery now, because we don't understand what >motivates him, but once this is explained, why should he remain anymore >complex than any other character in the book?" Other characters are complex, but I'll leave that bit aside. Snape's complexity doesn't come only from the current mysteries about him. We knew he was complex from book 1, when he went to considerable trouble to save a student he obviously despises. This tension has become more and more polarized as with each book Snape hates Harry more and takes ever-increasing risks on his behalf (I'd have to stretch things to make CS fit into this pattern, but PA and GF definitely do). As for his being less complex once his motivations are explained, this I just don't get. He has varying and contradictory motivations, and our knowing what they are makes him more complex to us, not less. As things stand, he seems to have a mix of motivations, e.g.: -dislike of Harry, dislike of Harry's father and his friends, a desire to protect Harry -loyalty to Dumbledore (evident in GF as well as elsewhere), exasperation at Dumbledore/mistrust of his judgment (very evident in Shrieking Shack scene, where he longs to prove Dumbledore wrong about Lupin) This makes for a realistically complex person no matter whether we know the reasons behind the actions or not. Ama wrote: >I had trouble understanding how the twins' teasing, >especially of their siblings, could be construed as >malicious. It's not bad on the overall scale of sibling relations, though I could do without the "dungbrains" and all that. I grew up thinking that was perfectly normal sibling behavior until I met children who actually liked their siblings and whose parents expected the siblings to treat each other with respect. It can be very damaging to grow up being insulted all the time even if the person doing the insulting is an older brother or sister, not a parent. And then there are the beetles in Bill's soup *shudder*. Still, F&G are generally pretty easy on their siblings, it seems--mischievous but not malicious, to use Elkins's distinction. However, I am never going to forgive Fred for killing Ron's puffskein, or JKR for thinking that that is funny (FB). I'm praying there turns out to be another explanation. Killing someone's pet is a particularly advanced form of abuse. Elkins wrote: >Percy's good opinion is something that Ron values highly >enough for it to be presented as a major part of his *triumph* at the >end of the novel I don't follow this. The fact that it's emphasized by JKR means Ron values it? So Percy's delight about winning his bet with Penny is important to Harry and that's why it's mentioned at the Ravenclaw match? JKR puts these things in, IMO, because they tell us about Percy, not about the other characters. We know Percy is proud of Ron, but not that Ron gives a hoot whether he is or not. Elkins again: >The pomposity and the puffing and the self-aggrandizement all seem to be >how Percy responds >to feeling insecure and unhappy. I agree, and hereby declare this Be Nice to Percy Week (slogan: A Happy Percy is a Less Pompous Percy). Jo Serenadust wrote: >IMO she's just a loving, caring, overworked, underpaid mother >who loves all her kids equally, (even >if differently) and she gets the important stuff right. Hear, hear! I don't think Molly is perfect, and I would especially like to see a few more warm moments between her and Ron, but some of the indictments of her have read like He-Whose-Book-Must-Not-Be-Named's descriptions of Arthur as a criminal, hypocrite, and terrible father and husband. Thanks for the voice of moderation. I definitely do not think Molly's attention to Harry has one iota to do with his being Famous Harry Potter. She is very maternal and he is an orphaned and abused child as well as a polite kid whom any mother would love her son to befriend--'nuff said. The whole Weasley family really embraces him as a regular kid, which is good medicine for poor Harry; even Ginny's crush, once she has met him, can be seen as being of the usual kind and not the oh-my-god-he's-so-famous, and after Ron and the twins' initial amazement they treat him like everyone else. The Diagon Alley Barkeep wrote: >I also wonder if other magic-capable children do little strange tricks >(like Harry with the glass at the zoo) before getting the letter, hence the >parents might realize "Wow, this explains an awful lot about little Billy". Colin did: "I never knew all the odd stuff I could do was magic till I got the letter from Hogwarts" (CS 6). It makes me think it's pretty common. I can just see us all raising our kids with HP in mind and watching them eagerly for any signs of weird activity. Boggles wrote: >I can't make the simple status-of-parents version fit either with Riddle's >comment, Ron's, or Ernie's, above. I agree that people in the wizarding world have various standards, and use "half-blood" loosely; also, which standards they call upon depend on the circumstances (e.g. Ernie's insistence upon his pure ancestry is born of terror). Good catch on Ron's use of the term. In his case I think it's just a loose usage; in Riddle's, I suspect he is deliberately trying to equate himself with Harry--drag Harry down to his level, as it were. If Harry were as racist as Riddle he could shoot back "YOU'RE a half-blood; MY parents were both wizards." But it's characteristic of Harry that he instead defends "my Muggle-born mother"--to pick nits with Riddle over definitions would be rather to buy into his worldview. Tex wrote: >Wondering if the map has a "drag and drop" feature, so the Marauders can >move people around if they are in an inconvenient place. LOL! A must-include for the Marauder's Map Mark II! Amy Z ------------------------------------- "We don't send people to Azkaban just for blowing up their aunts!" -HP and the Prisoner of Azkaban ------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com Mon Mar 4 18:41:54 2002 From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:41:54 -0000 Subject: The Time Turner and the Marauder's Map References: <20020303223807.32627.qmail@web20805.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006701c1c3ac$8a2d4b60$eb86bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 36047 I don't know if its been discussed, but I wondered if a person using a time turner shows up more than once on the map. If so why doesn't Lupin comment that he say Harry and Hermonie twice by Hagrid's hut? I figure a person only shows up once and that would be for his or her first time though the events. Eclipse I would suspect, as the map shows * here and now * not * there and then * (if that makes sense) the person using the map would has, as far as I can make out, sees what is there at present. As the map was done by M, W, P & P when they were at school, they were probably clever but not sildly advanced magicians. Lupin would, I think, only see Haryy and Hermione once. Felicia Who advises everyone to see A Rickman in * Private Lives * when it goes 2 New York :-)) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jloveys at zoom.co.uk Tue Mar 5 02:17:25 2002 From: jloveys at zoom.co.uk (Jedi Knight Jo) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 02:17:25 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: Lavendar's rabbit / TimeTurner-MaraudersMap / Chamberpot Room References: Message-ID: <003b01c1c3eb$ffa949e0$2d3c68d5@jody> No: HPFGUIDX 36048 All the stuff in arrows: Catlady >>There is evidence that Lavender is Muggle-born, so getting a letter from her parents to her would take more than one owl. (My theory: Post UK to an address on Charing Cross road next door to the Leaky Cauldron, where it is picked up once a day and taken to the Owl Post Office in Diagon Alley, where the outer envelope is opened, the money in the outer envelope is used to pay for the owl, and the inner envelope, addressed to the real recipient (Lavender Brown, Hogwarts School, Scotland) is given to the owl.)<< Hey I really like this theory - it's a good idea. I've always wondered about Lavender and Co actually - whether they're Muggle born or not and how they get around the owl post thing if they are. >>Being Muggle-born might also explain why she didn't take Binky to school with her: her parents were ignorant enough to think that the part of the Hogwarts letter that says students may bring a cat OR an owl OR a toad meant what it said, and that she wasn't allowed to bring some other kind of pet.<< I can see even the wizarding people thinking this. I mean, there must be a reason why they actually put in the letter that you can bring a cat or a rat or a toad and not just say that you are allowed one pet. I have a feeling (having seen this discussed before) that the letter Harry got was probably the one that wizarding parents get to tell them their children are magical enough to have been accepted - their parents would already know about the existence of Hogwarts so they would know what to do next. I figured Muggle parents got more information and/or a visit from a staff member. >>You'd think, tho', that by third year, she'd have seen enough of Ron's rat, Lee's tarantula, and other non-standard pets to know that no one would give her aggravation about bringing her bunny to schoool.<< Scabbers was always something I wondered about too. It would seem that the Weasley parents are familiar enough by now to know that a rat isn't an approved pet (at least for a first year - Scabbers was originally Percy's so I wondered if maybe older students are allowed different pets), but they let Ron take him anyway. Similarly, I never thought about Lee Jordan having the giant tarantula as a pet (maybe a new friend for Aragog?), I always thought it was to play a nice joke one someone (or a few someones) - his friendship with the Twins means he has to have a sense of humour and his Quidditch commentary shows it even more (how did he get that job anyway?). It never even occurred to me that the tarantula was a pet rather than a prank waiting to happen. :) >>To me, the bigger mystery is how Fred and George NEVER saw Peter Pettigrew hanging arouund with Ron. S'okay, they had no need to look into the Gryffindor Class of 1998 boys' dorm, so they didn't see Ron in bed with a male name they didn't recognise, but how did they never see Harry, Hermione, Ron, and Peter wandering the Castle together?<< Good point. Maybe it's because they never spied on Little Brother? Maybe they just never noticed Ron and Co when they were looking at the map to avoid being caught in trouble by a teacher? If they're intent on, say. what Snape is doing where, it's fairly safe to say that they might miss Ron when he's likely to be mixed in with a load of other students taking a class or eating or going through the corridors. >>"Q: If you could travel to Hogwarts for an hour, what would you do there? JKR: Go straight into a certain room, mentioned in book four which has certain magical properties Harry hasn't discovered yet!" And when this statement was being debated, someone made a plausible argument that she was referring to the chamberpot room. Of course, other people made equally plausible arguments for the prefects' bathroom, the little room next to the Great Hall, and the kitchen.<< How about the room where the wands were 'weighed' as part of the Tournament? --Jo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Mar 5 14:02:21 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:02:21 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] More on Parenting Styles Message-ID: <70.18cb88f3.29b629ed@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36049 Jo Serenadust on Molly: > . IMO she's just a loving, caring, > overworked, underpaid mother who loves all her kids equally, (even > if differently) and she gets the important stuff right. > Are there any other mothers out there wishing to weigh in on this? > > Jo Serenadust, who wishes that people would cut Molly a break about > the freaking sandwiches, already (acronym Tabouli?) > I don't know what happened to the reply I started writing last night, under the eagle-eyed scrutiny of my 12 year old, so I'll start again. I love Molly. Of course she's not a perfect parent. Which of us is? There seems to me to be an ironical situation on this list when it comes to parenting. We like our good guys grey, many want their bad guys grey, but when it comes to parents, they're supposed to be squeaky clean, bright, shining white and from where I'm standing it just ain't like that! Unlike Jo, I didn't leave anything high-powered to become a parent, but I was fortunate enough to to be able to choose to give up work to look after my four children. I'm far from prefect. Like Molly, I shout ( but not as effectively, alas!). I often get it wrong. I often regret the way I've handled situations. But I'm sure my kids know that they're loved (we tell each other often enough) and that however stressy Mum is, she's actually got their best interests at heart. That's how I see Molly. Choosing to become a full time parent is not necessarily a route to contentment. I would love to be one of those wonderful, serene mothers (though actually, when I talk to these seeming paragons, they often seem to be having as tough a time as I am), but I'm not. I'm glad I chose to be a full-time mother, but I do sometimes find it dreadfully frustrating and frankly sometimes resent the way my time is wasted by people who don't understand how much time and effort you've put into a task which they immediately undo, or think they can just keep you hanging round an age until they feel like doing whatever it is that needs to be done. Don't get me wrong. I think parenting is terribly important and very fulfilling. But it isn't easy and I don't always enjoy it. (I can feel a fit of Kant coming on again!) That's where I think Molly's at. She loves her kids and does her best for them, which is all any of us can do. Sometimes she gets it wrong and she's stressed, hassled and frustrated at times. As Jo says, Molly treats her kids differently from each other. That's because they're individuals. All my kids are different and I have different relationships with each of them. Some are more stormy, some more placid; some more open, some more unstated; some, frankly more enjoyable at times than others. It doesn't mean I love any of them more than the rest: I love them all to pieces but each of them brings with them at different times different joys and different frustrations. We know she worries about them. Look at her reaction after the World Cup, and after the twins steal the car. And she loves them, despite the criticism. She was mortified to think that her last words to the twins might have been critical. In fact, surely the criticism ( I'm not saying that criticising children is a good thing, though I'm sure I'm guilty) is actually one of her ways of expressing care. (We don't often IIRC see Molly being overtly affectionate: something to do with them being boys and the fact that she's taken on the tough parent role out of her and Arthur?) As I tell my own children, if I accepted everything they did, let them do precisely as they pleased, I wouldn't be being a parent. Parents are there to guide, to correct inapproriate behaviour as well as to praise. There may be better or worse ways to do it, but it's part of the job description. Bill really doesn't need her any more. He has a secure job, there's not much she feels she can do for him. But criticising his hair and his ear ring is a way of bringing him back into her sphere of responsibility. Yes, we have to let go, but the reluctance to let go is an expression of feeling, of affection. She's proud of Percy, but much of the pride expressed, the favouritism seen by some, seems to be for the benefit of the twins. I think she's genuinely very worried about them. Forget how mature or not they kids of that age are. >From Molly's perspective, they're just children. Not kids with the luxury of three or four years at university in which to mature and decide where they want to go in life, but kids who have to make their way in the world in about a year. Kids who are more interested in jokes than grades, who, from her perspective, have simply no sense of priorities at all. If she took a long hard look, of course (I hope) she'd see like the rest of us that the MoM would be a disastrous career choice. But surely what she really wants is some financial security for them. They're poor, remember. This hair-brained joke shop idea just seems too risky - and besides, setting up in business requires capital, or at least security, which the Weasley family can't provide. From her POV, it's a non-starter. It's OK for the twins to take risks, to show entrepreneurial spirit, admirable really from our POV, but I can understand a parent's reluctance to allow her children to take such risks with their lives. As for Ron...well, I think Ron has his own problems. I'm not saying that it's easy being the youngest boy, who gets everything second-hand when he has a younger sibling, who because of her sex, gets new stuff ( though not everything, books, for example), its not; but he does have a bit of a chip on his shoulder. I confess that he's not my favourite character and I can imagine that he's sometimes hard to deal with. I've had enough complaints from mine about hand me downs, about how its not fair that so and so gets something and I don't. We're affluent enough that I can give my younger girls some new stuff to supplement the second hand, but it must hurt Molly. Hurt, because she doesn't want to give her child second best, hurt because she's criticised for something over which she has no control. As for those sandwiches......Well, the times I get my kids thing into the wrong bags, forget exactly who doesn't like what, call my three girls by each others' names. Well, I'm sorry, but these things happen in a busy household. I *cannot* produce a meal that all four of them find acceptable. Whatever I produce, someone will say, 'but I don't like that'. Either I resign myself to running a restaurant, cooking separate meals, or I have to displease someone. And whilst I know that *someone* won't eat tortellini and *someone* won't touch shepherd's pie and *someone* will only eat Tesco's sausages and *someome* will only eat Sainsbury's etc, etc, I'm afraid my brain doesn't cope with the fine details. Ironically, I think it may be easier to remember these foibles in other peoples' children, as in the school teacher example someone gave. Those relationships are simpler, they don't have all the other emotional overlay, all the complications of relationships with one's own children, when frankly, some of these other considerations become very minor. They are also professional relationships. I know we tend to talk of parenting as a job these days, but IMHO, that is to try to give it some of the status it has lacked, to recognise at last its importance, to legitimise the lives of people like me who stay at home rather than going out to work. But from a child's perspective, I'm not sure that this is helpful. A child wants you to be there simply because you love them and they are the most important thing in the world to you. Ultimately, parenting is a relationship, not a job and it is consequently difficult to quantify how successful one is. None of us is a perfect parent. But there is a concept, I should know where it comes from, but I'm afraid I forget, of the 'Good enough' parent. On good days, perhaps I'm better than that, but it's what I cling to when the going gets tough, and I'm sure that Molly is good enough. So yes, please give Molly a break. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Mar 5 10:15:39 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 05:15:39 EST Subject: In the Middle of the Night (FILK) Message-ID: <14c.9e374c5.29b5f4cb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36050 In the Middle of the Night ( to River of Dreams, by Billy Joel) Snape In the middle of the night I go walking -- I don't sleep - Through the castle so dark >From my dungeon so deep And I'm looking for some peace of mind Memories crowd my greasy head But all I ever seem to find Is Potter out of bed So many voices fill my head So many secrets that I know and that must now be hid I see the faces of the friends now dead The nightmare of the things I saw and the things I did In the middle of the night I go walking - I don't sleep - Fleeing memories I fear In my dungeon so deep And I keep thinking 'bout a girl I knew Who once bewitched my soul A love that I would never lose A love somebody stole And so that's why I go walking at night I'm not a vampire longing for a feed Can't you tell this heart still beats, I'm not undead Can't you see I bleed? In the middle of the night I went walking - couldn't sleep - Had a problem with my dark life Found I'd sunk myself too deep Met a guy whose name was George And his little sister Di Who showed me that the Dark Lord Was just the Prince of Lies In the middle of the night I wasn't sure about life after this But Dumbledore soon had me on his team Betrayed my friends with a Judas' kiss So now they haunt my dreams In the middle of the night I go walking - I don't sleep - To escape the ghosts In my dungeon so deep And although I was a Death Eater When my moral sense was zero Now I suffer for my ethics - I'm a walking Kantian hero In the middle of the night Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From degroote at altavista.com Mon Mar 4 20:59:37 2002 From: degroote at altavista.com (Vicky DeGroote) Date: 4 Mar 2002 12:59:37 -0800 Subject: Molly Weasly's parenting style/ Percy Message-ID: <20020304205937.25212.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36051 An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 5 16:07:49 2002 From: lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com (Ms Lizard Gizzard) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 08:07:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] BBC article mention of H/Hr SHIP mentions In-Reply-To: <000001c1c437$1006a1c0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: <20020305160749.3864.qmail@web13509.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36052 --- Laura Huntley wrote: >...at the bottom of an article on BBC > News. "Harry ...will now develop more of an > interest in Hermione" > While I doubt that the BBC has anything special -- > or particularly true -- here, I'm wondering -- where > is this rumor coming from? I disagree with you that she wouldn't reveal something like this in an interview. All the article says, after all, is that Harry will develop "more of an interest." That's not all that much information, is it? Every book has built some kind of conflict between H/R or H/H, or R/H, and this is just one more possible source of conflict. > Harrumph. They're kids, aren't they? Nope. Sorry. They're 15. Full reproductive maturity has been attained. (not that *that* should be addressed. There are 6 year olds who love Harry.) >...and H/G No, please no. I assume you mean H/Hr? Or, um, who's G? (This is my first post on this forum. Hope it comes out all right. X) Lizgiz __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Mar 5 16:52:57 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 16:52:57 -0000 Subject: Twins/Percy/Ron/Molly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36053 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" wrote: => And Twins - well they're the good-kind of pranksters. They live to > make people laugh. They can also laugh at themselves (the beards) - > and can't see why some people can't do the same. They and Percy are > having sibling-fight: Nothing serious, really. Twins play pranks, > Percy responds by maliticiously following rules (including grammar), > and by refusing to laugh/get angry. The twins target on Percy because > he hasn't reacted yet (except by telling them off) - they want to see > if Percy has emotions. I can't buy this. Because Percy does react. He chases them around and goes into rages throughout the books. He doesn't answer back with a poker face. Instead, he is always described as turning a deep red. They definitely know he has emotions. The reason they continue their tricks against him is that they DO get such a good reaction. Eileen From pennylin at swbell.net Tue Mar 5 18:55:12 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 12:55:12 -0600 Subject: More on the Weasleys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36054 Hi all -- Um .... maybe Yahoogroups is functioning again? :--) Jo Serenadust wrote: >IMO she's just a loving, caring, overworked, underpaid mother >who loves all her kids equally, (even if differently) and she gets the >important stuff right. Amy responded: <<>>> Now, now. I hope my posts don't fall into this category. I don't think it's wildly over-the-top to suggest that Molly's parenting style isn't perfect. Of course, no one's style would be. And, as noted by others, it *is* a subjective perception based on how one was parented & how one is parenting. I don't think she's a terrible mother by any stretch. But, I don't think she's portrayed as Mother of the Year either. Maybe she hounded Bill & Charlie until they were out of school too, but I think she should lighten up on the Twins with respect to their professional goals. I think she favors Percy fairly obviously (chances are good it's noticeable to Percy's siblings as well). I think she neglects Ron in large measure ... probably due to his place in the family order rather than anything sinister. And, I do think she's smothering Ginny. I guess I just don't get what JKR's trying to convey with her depiction of Molly; it doesn't seem to me that it's a fully favorable portrayal due to how she interacts with her youngest 4 kids. Amy went on to say: <<>> I agree -- I definitely don't think it's Harry's status in the wizarding world. I just don't *get* why she pays so much more attention to Harry than to Ron. <<>> "Can be seen as" why? In other words, what is the canon basis for assuming her crush is *not* Harry-the-Famous-Potter crush variety? She's *met* him; she interacts with him *some* but not tons. I don't see how we can say that Harry or Ginny knows too terribly much about each other at this point. I would bet Ginny is still "Ron's little sister who has this annoying crush on me" in Harry's mind. And while I don't *know* what might be going on in Ginny's mind, her initial crush was based on his fame. Her diary entries that Riddle quotes to Harry in the chamber do mention that she wonders whether "famous good Harry Potter" will ever like her (I don't have CoS with me so I'm quoting from memory & could be mistaken). :::shrugs::: I dunno -- you can counter with the scene in the bookstore in CoS where she seems to know that Harry didn't ask for the attention & adulation Lockhart gives him. But, the diary entries later in the book do mention "famous" (of course, I suppose Riddle might not be trustworthy in that regard). I think it's impossible to judge what her crush is based on at this stage. Penny _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kerelsen at quik.com Mon Mar 4 19:04:13 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:04:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] More on Parenting Styles References: Message-ID: <000601c1c3af$61051260$b921b0d8@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 36055 JO Serenadust wrote: (SNIP) > It occurs to me in this discussion that nearly everyone is looking > at the Molly/Ron corned beef/maroon discussion from the point of > view of the child, and not a parent of multiple school-age children. > Not to say that the posters themselves are children but just saying > that they don't seem to have any personal experience with bringing > up children in this age-range (if I'm wrong about this, please let > me know). Mom of five kids speaking here (and I'm new so if I say something that's been covered to death, it's because I haven't had the time to go back and read the old posts very much yet. I'm just snatching a minute to check email before heading off to deliver kids to various activities and getting back to the never ending housework!). > Having left a fairly substantial professional career in order to > bring up 2 kids (now 11 and 13), it's really a high priority to me > that I *get it right* as much as humanly possible. This *is* my job > now. Even so, more than once my kids have come home from school > telling me pointedly that I mixed up their sandwiches AGAIN. Yes, I > know which one likes pb&j and which one likes ham & cheese, but > somehow in the morning chaos with permission slips and bakesale > money and band instruments,I screw it up. And it gets worse the more children you have. I don't believe that Molly is being deliberately obtuse about Ron's likes and dislikes, any more than I am being deliberately obtuse when I send rice krispie treats in to school by mistake with my son who hates marshmallows. > Now considering that Molly has 4 of them (in PS/SS) to do laundry > for, pack for, and get to the train station on time, is it > indicative of an indifferent mother to give Ron the wrong sandwiches? > (I had visions of Percy groaning over Ron's egg salad, which wound > up in his pack) LOL! So I'm not the only one who wondered if Ron's sandwiches ended up with one of his brothers... >No one has mentioned that when she sends them off in > PofA (with Ginny, Harry, & Hermione, too) she *does* remember that > Ron doesn't like corned beef. IMO she's just a loving, caring, > overworked, underpaid mother who loves all her kids equally, (even > if differently) and she gets the important stuff right. > Are there any other mothers out there wishing to weigh in on this? I think what a lot of us are overlooking is that Rowlings has had the guts to write a "good" mom who isn't perfect. Most of us "good" moms aren't perfect in this life. It would have been awfully easy for her to have made Molly the Martha Stewart of the Potterverse, instead of having flaws just like a real person. >From Harry's perspective, Molly is the perfect parent, because he's never had anything like the consideration that she gives to her family automatically because she loves them. He may also be perceiving in her the traits that he dreams his own mother would have had, if she had survived. >From the mom perspective, I feel that a lot of Molly's treatment of Harry comes from a combination of pity and horror for his "home" situation, and some celebrity worship .I mean, look how she is about Gilderoy Lockhart in HPCS... I wouldn't necessarily call it a crush on the guy--or rather, his image--but she doesn't react to him like she would to any other "ordinary" wizard. Thus, the same thing that changes her behavior in regards to Lockhart issues, could also be the same thing behind her special treatment of Harry. Harry never wanted to be a celebrity--all he ever wanted was to be accepted as an ordinary person. Molly treats him more like an ordinary person than any of the Muggles in his life, but she still treats him like a celebrity as well. I also think that she may not even realize that she _is_ treating Harry as if he's a celebrity. Bernadette --who wishes that she could use magic to clean the kitchen and give her more time to play with the baby! From blpurdom at yahoo.com Tue Mar 5 21:48:01 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 21:48:01 -0000 Subject: The Time Turner/Marauder's Map/Lupin's Transformation In-Reply-To: <006701c1c3ac$8a2d4b60$eb86bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36056 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Felicia Rickmann" wrote: > I don't know if its been discussed, but I wondered > if a person using a time turner shows up more than > once on the map. If so why doesn't Lupin comment that > he say Harry and Hermonie twice by Hagrid's hut? I > figure a person only shows up once and that would be > for his or her first time though the events. > > Eclipse > > I would suspect, as the map shows * here and now * not * there and > then * (if that makes sense) the person using the map would has, > as far as I can make out, sees what is there at present. As the > map was done by M, W, P & P when they were at school, they were > probably clever but not sildly advanced magicians. > > Lupin would, I think, only see Haryy and Hermione once. > > Felicia This HAS been discussed, but not recently. I was once of the opinion that they would have to have shown up on the map, but I'm softening that stance a little with time and some perspective. ;) I do still believe that if a person is within the parameters of the map, whether or not they're time traveling, they should show up on the map, period. I also disagree with Felicia about the magical abilities of the Marauders. I believe that the very creation of the map shows that the Marauders WERE indeed rather advanced wizards (and they all managed to become Animagi, as well, which is more advanced magic). There could be several reasons for neither Lupin nor Snape mentioning an "extra" Harry and an "extra" Hermione being on the map: 1) The person inspecting the map was in a hurry, and upon seeing one dot for Harry and one for Hermione, did not continue to search the map for more. 2) Harry and Hermione were down near Hagrid's hut, which is probably very close to the edge of the territory covered by the map. They could simply have been out-of-range. (Someone else pointed this out to me when I first raised this point months ago, and it's a very likely explanation, IMO.) 3) Someone who DID see more than one Harry and Hermione on the map may have refrained from saying this because they a) wanted to keep this information for future use--Snape comes to mind--or b) they thought the map was malfunctioning (again, more likely Snape than Lupin, who helped create the map). On another PoA-related note, we've discussed before the strangeness of Lupin not transforming into a werewolf until the moon was fully revealed by the shifting clouds after they all emerged from the Whomping Willow. This seems to contradict the idea that once the moon is full, whether a werewolf is directly exposed to moonlight or not, he/she should transform. However, there are several things to take into account: 1) While JKR does not seem to be sticking to a reality-based lunar calendar (the first day of the full moon in June of 1994 is the 23rd, far too late in the month for the PoA story), this link (http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/phase/phases.1901-2000.html) does show that the time at which the moon enters a new phase does not necessarily correspond to sunset/moonrise (which, on the first day/night of the full moon, are very close to being the same time, according to this web page-- http://timbeauchamp.tripod.com/moon/mooninfo.htm, third question). 2) This means that if the exact time that the earth stops obstructing the light of the sun from striking the moon--even a little--is at, say, 8:27 pm GMT, as it was on January 16, 1995, then that is when werewolves would become susceptible to the effects of the full moon, despite the fact that sunset/moonrise that day was at about 4:11 pm GMT. 3) This, in turn means that while the moon APPEARED to be full (a nearly full moon and an actual full moon are very hard to tell apart) before 8:27 pm GMT on January 16, 1995, it was not ACTUALLY full yet. Even though JKR's lunar schedule appears to be completely fictitious, it is possible that the thing that caused Lupin to transform was not the obscured moon being revealed by the shifting clouds, but that the time when the earth moved fully out of the way finally arrived. Just because January 16, 1995 is the first night of the full moon doesn't mean it was full from the moment it rose. JKR was playing fast and loose with the lunar cycle, so she could have imagined that on that night in June of 1994, as on January 16, 1995, the moon rose at sunset, but later became completely full at about the time they all emerged from the Whomping Willow. So, if you formerly thought the delayed transformation of Lupin was a Flint, it could simply be JKR taking artistic license with the lunar schedule... --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Tue Mar 5 20:34:35 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:34:35 EST Subject: (no subject) Message-ID: <141.a856159.29b685db@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36057 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" wrote: > > Well, I can see how a cheering charm would make Sirius happy, although I highly doubt that Peter would have used one on him. It doesn't seem to make much sense, IMO. Rather, I think that Siruis was just at a breakdown point. He had just discovered that 2 of his best friends were murdered, amd another of his best friends was the one to betray them, thus leading to their deaths. After Sirius believes Peter is dead, he just sort of snaps. He's greatly relieved that Peter can do no more harm, yet he's terribly upset that Lily and James were murdered. I think he was laughing because he didn't really no what else to do. Should he burst into tears? Should he scream? Should he laugh? Personally, I know people that have started laughing (some almost hysterically) when they have learned of a loved ones death, or a horrible situation that happened. It's a sort of reflex. You don't want to laugh, but your emotions are high, and you just don't know what else to do. That's why I think Sirius was laughing then. *Chelsea* [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aberforths_Goat at Yahoo.com Tue Mar 5 21:58:31 2002 From: Aberforths_Goat at Yahoo.com (Aberforth's Goat) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 22:58:31 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] BBC article mention of H/Hr SHIP mentions References: <000001c1c437$1006a1c0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: <00b801c1c491$07f67960$0200a8c0@shasta> No: HPFGUIDX 36058 Laura found > this at the bottom of an article on BBC News. > > "Harry has already been interested in a "quidditch" > team-mate in Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire, > the fourth book in the series - but will now develop > more of an interest in Hermione, one of his best friends. " > > While I doubt that the BBC has anything special -- > or particularly true -- here, I'm wondering -- where > is this rumor coming from? Does it have any basis in > truth? I find it hard to believe that JKR would reveal > anything like this concerning a yet unpublished installment, > but so many people seem to be *so sure* about it. The whole story is weird. I mentioned a while back that I had managed to buttonhole an employee at the Guardian to ask how they had come up with their story. He mentioned an "an ambiguity in the pre-release information about the programme." Curiosity whetted - and assuming there was a press release involved - I wrote back to ask whether I could have a look at the release. I received the following reply: "I'm afraid there wasn't a press release as such; the confusion must have been down to ambiguous wording somewhere down the line... one must tread very carefully when it comes to Harry Potter!" To be honest, I find that response rather intriguing. (Particulary the statement about "treading carefully." As far as I can tell, "treading carefully" was precisely what no one was doing. Or did he mean that there's more to the story than anyone in the press is alloweed to reveal?) In any case, it would appear that at some unidentified point, someone said something that lead the BBC itself to publish an article containing nonsense about their own special. Who this someone was and how this someone managed to get this erroneous information to newspapers all over the world fast enough for them to all publish the same mistake on the same day (December 28th) - and all without a press release - proves, if nothing else, the existence of magic. Baaaaaa! Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray) _______________________ "Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been bravery...." _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Mon Mar 4 22:53:10 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:53:10 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Was: Sirius' laughter,(Voldemort's corpse and a Dumbledor... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36059 In a message dated 3/4/2002 3:56:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, lmccabe at sonic.net writes: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" wrote: > > Well, I can see how a cheering charm would make Sirius happy, although I highly doubt that Peter would have used one on him. It doesn't seem to make much sense, IMO. Rather, I think that Siruis was just at a breakdown point. He had just discovered that 2 of his best friends were murdered, amd another of his best friends was the one to betray them, thus leading to their deaths. After Sirius believes Peter is dead, he just sort of snaps. He's greatly relieved that Peter can do no more harm, yet he's terribly upset that Lily and James were murdered. I think he was laughing because he didn't really no what else to do. Should he burst into tears? Should he scream? Should he laugh? Personally, I know people that have started laughing (some almost hysterically) when they have learned of a loved ones death, or a horrible situation that happened. It's a sort of reflex. You don't want to laugh, but your emotions are high, and you just don't know what else to do. That's why I think Sirius was laughing then. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bbennett at joymail.com Tue Mar 5 21:30:56 2002 From: bbennett at joymail.com (bbennett320178) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 21:30:56 -0000 Subject: Hermione, kindness/insensitivity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36060 Serenadust wrote: > > Her insensitivity to others can > >be breathtaking at times. Remember her response to the death of > >Lavenders rabbit? She consistently favors being right over being > > kind. You're talking about personality type, Serena. Hermione can be kind to others, as Amy pointed out, but when her sense of Right is challenged, proving her point becomes her main goal - not being sensitive to others. Myers Brigg (and Keirsey/Jung) categorize people into Thinkers and Feelers. Thinkers are primarily interested in what is Just, a concept they determine through the use of impersonal logic (facts they can determine that are dependent of personal 'interference'). Feelers are primarily concerned with what is Fair, which is determined through their relationships with people and the use of personal logic. The House Elf situation is a good example - Hermione's primary interest in this situation is seeing Justice served and the House Elves liberated, which her impersonal logic tells her is the way things should be - she has little interest in relating to the House Elves on a personal level once she finds out they are wary of her plans, and does not let their personal feelings sway her. This is very Thinker behavior (I think Harry is a Thinker as well). This of course doesn't mean a Feeler would decide the House Elf situation was A-OK once they talked to the Elves (a Feeler would proceed with plans on a more personal level, taking the Elves feelings into account), or that Thinkers are somehow naturally rude - it's just a difference in how people think. This has been discussed some over on the OT thread; Keirsey's website has more on the T/F difference (http://keirsey.com/pumII/tf.html). B From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed Mar 6 00:30:42 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:30:42 -0000 Subject: More on the Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36061 Penny Linsenmayer wrote: > Um .... maybe Yahoogroups is functioning again? :--) Oh, is that what it's called? On Molly: > >I don't think she's a terrible mother by any stretch. But, I > don't think she's portrayed as Mother of the Year either. > I guess I just don't get what > JKR's trying to convey with her depiction of Molly; it doesn't seem to me > that it's a fully favorable portrayal due to how she interacts with her > youngest 4 kids. > Just a couple of knuts to say that I find Molly a very *realistic* character - she is not in control of her behaviour with her children (cf the scene in GOF when F & G return from the World Cup). She is frustrated with her husband's unassertiveness and feels she has to carry the can for the whole family. Her anxiety for the twins shows as domineering and they only half understand it. Ron never does anything particularly good or bad so she has nothing to latch on to with him - she has learnt that if she ignores him nothing goes wrong, and he doesn't realise that this is a kind of vote of confidence. Bill is his own man and she isn't sure if she is going to lose him completely - hence the attempt to assert control. She just about believes her luck in Percy being a paragon and has to draw attention to it. To be honest, I think that's about as good as mothering gets. If she was much better, more would mean less as her kids came to realise they could never live up to her apparent perfection. I'd put her beyond categories of good and bad (or favourable and unfavourable) which don't usually apply to real people anyway. Amy, on Ginny: >even Ginny's crush, once > she has met him, can be seen as being of the usual kind and not the > oh-my-god-he's-so-famous,>>> > Penny: > "Can be seen as" why? In other words, what is the canon basis for assuming > her crush is *not* Harry-the-Famous-Potter crush variety? She's *met* him; > she interacts with him *some* but not tons. She is gradually beginning to act normal around Harry. It's slow, but it's happening. She can take part in dinner conversation with Bill and her mum instead of just sitting there conscious that she's three-chairs-down-from-Harry-and-does-that-look-like-she's-trying-to- get-too-close-but-she-would-like-to-be-closer, as I think COS-Ginny would have done (Harry thinks she's quiet in COS), and she can laugh at him before the ball. That may mean that the crush is disappearing (though there is other evidence it is not) but it suggests to me she is not star-struck. > I think it's impossible to judge what her crush is based on at this stage. > That would not be incompatible with 'can be seen as'. David From cindysphynx at home.com Wed Mar 6 00:39:15 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:39:15 -0000 Subject: Sirius and the Witch's Hump Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36062 This is one of those questions that has probably been discussed before, but I can't remember the answer, so here it is again. :-) In PoA, Sirius gains entry to the castle twice. He does this (I've always thought) by entering Honeydukes and entering and exiting the castle through the witch's hump. In Snape's Grudge, Harry sprints through the Honeydukes tunnel to get back to the castle quickly. He "reached the inside of the witch's hump, tapped it with his wand, stuck his head through, and hoisted himself out; the hump closed . . ." If a wand is required to open the witch's hump from the outside or the inside, then how is Sirius managing this? Sirius clearly doesn't have a wand, as he spends the last chapters of the book using other people's wands. If a wand is not required to open the witch's hump from the inside, then why does Harry do it when he is in such a hurry to get back to the castle? Similarly, once Sirius is inside the castle, how does he get out if the witch's hump closes automatically? So . . . how is Sirius getting into the castle? Cindy From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Wed Mar 6 00:27:20 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 19:27:20 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] BBC article mention of H/Hr SHIP mentions Message-ID: <4e.78f7f71.29b6bc68@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36063 In a message dated 3/5/2002 5:45:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com writes: > <> Harrumph. They're kids, aren't they? > > > <>...and H/G No, please no. > > > > <(This is my first post on this forum. Hope it comes > > Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36064 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Penny Linsenmayer" wrote: >Snip lot's of good Weasley stuff from Penny< In defense of Molly(which there seems to be plenty of :)), what about the fact that all of this is being seen through Harry's eyes? His opinions about her various children color how he percieves her reactions with them, and so also color how we, the readers, see them. Harry has never had a mother/mother figure in his life, so her attentions seem even more extreme than they would to somone who grew up with a mom. He's just not used to being hugged, or exclaimed over, and so when he is, it seems huge and monumental. Also, Ron is probably thrilled to have Molly vent her motherly exuerance in any direction but his. What 14 year old guy wants to be hugged in public?? Bad enough to have your nose rubbed... Harry finds Fred and George hilarious, and all around fun guys, and so sees Molly's punishment of them as over reactive and unfair. In the same vein, Bill is 'cool', so why does Molly have to go off on him for his hair and his earring?? Percy, on the other hand, is annoying, pompous, and 'perfect', and so it seems to Harry that Molly unfairly favors him. Harry is closest to Ron, and so hears Ron's grievances the most, making it seem to him that Ron has it worst of all. Harry would be more likely to sympathize with Ron than, say, Fred. When Fred gets a robe he doesn't like, if he gripes(which i get the feeling is not a very Fred and George thing to do), Harry would be less likely to dwell on it than on Ron's situation. That, anyway, is the way I've always interpreted Molly's seemingly biased actions towards her children. Or wanted to. Much love for Weasleys, Molly (Who doesn't love a character with her own name?) PS- On a totally unrelated note, I realized today as I read through the Fellowship of the Ring for about the fiftieth time that Gandalf once wishes above all else for warmer feet. That made me laugh, thinking of Dumbledore's wish for warm socks. Is there something about great wizards and their feet?? From elfundeb at aol.com Wed Mar 6 04:31:18 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 04:31:18 -0000 Subject: Sirius and the Witch's Hump In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36065 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > This is one of those questions that has probably been discussed > before, but I can't remember the answer, so here it is again. :-) > > In PoA, Sirius gains entry to the castle twice. He does this (I've > always thought) by entering Honeydukes and entering and exiting the > castle through the witch's hump. > > In Snape's Grudge, Harry sprints through the Honeydukes tunnel to > get back to the castle quickly. He "reached the inside of the > witch's hump, tapped it with his wand, stuck his head through, and > hoisted himself out; the hump closed . . ." > > If a wand is required to open the witch's hump from the outside or > the inside, then how is Sirius managing this? Sirius clearly > doesn't have a wand, as he spends the last chapters of the book > using other people's wands. If a wand is not required to open the > witch's hump from the inside, then why does Harry do it when he is > in such a hurry to get back to the castle? > > Similarly, once Sirius is inside the castle, how does he get out if > the witch's hump closes automatically? > > So . . . how is Sirius getting into the castle? > > Cindy Two thoughts on this: The first time he entered the castle, he may have been so animated by his anger and desire for revenge against Pettigrew that he was able to open the witch's hump without a wand, similarly to what Harry does on occasion when he's angry. As for getting out and getting in thereafter, Sirius became acquainted with Crookshanks at some point in his wanderings at Hogwarts (almost certainly at some time before Harry saw them together outside his dormitory window), who would have been able to assist him in entering (assuming Sirius could communicate with Crookshanks somehow, a question that) and escaping through the Whomping Willow. After all, they had a common mission and Crookshanks seems to have been quite able to escape the girls dormitory to do what he wanted to. One also cannot discount the idea that Sirius was so desperate to get into Hogwarts to get at Pettigrew that he was willing to brave the blows of the Whomping Willow, or that he used it to escape on Halloween. Debbie (On an unrelated note, I sent a response earlier to Eloise's post on Molly's parenting that apparently got lost on its way to the board, and while most of it is no great loss, I do want to reiterate my comment that Eloise's protestations notwithstanding, she sounds like an exceptional parent) From drjennyfer at hotmail.com Tue Mar 5 18:43:26 2002 From: drjennyfer at hotmail.com (drjennyfer) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 18:43:26 -0000 Subject: Where are the grandparents? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36066 Hi! I'm new here, so you've probably discussed this already (sorry!) but on re-reading the books, I noticed the apparent lack of grandparents throughout. With the exception of Neville's Gran, no grandparents ever seem to be mentioned. (Voldemort killed his at the beginning of GoF but they were his father's parents and therefore muggles.) We know that wizards live longer than Muggles, so they can't all be dead. Is it merely that they are unimportant to the story/plot? Jen From huntleyl at mssm.org Wed Mar 6 04:38:43 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 23:38:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius and the Witch's Hump References: Message-ID: <003c01c1c4c8$cbdc4bc0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 36067 Allright, I haven't completely thought out my theory on this yet, so there are probably holes, but here goes... Cindy Said: >In PoA, Sirius gains entry to the castle twice. He does this (I've >always thought) by entering Honeydukes and entering and exiting the >castle through the witch's hump. >In Snape's Grudge, Harry sprints through the Honeydukes tunnel to >get back to the castle quickly. He "reached the inside of the >witch's hump, tapped it with his wand, stuck his head through, and >hoisted himself out; the hump closed . . ." >If a wand is required to open the witch's hump from the outside or >the inside, then how is Sirius managing this? Sirius clearly >doesn't have a wand, as he spends the last chapters of the book >using other people's wands. If a wand is not required to open the >witch's hump from the inside, then why does Harry do it when he is >in such a hurry to get back to the castle? >Similarly, once Sirius is inside the castle, how does he get out if >the witch's hump closes automatically? >So . . . how is Sirius getting into the castle? It's kind of assumed, by me at least, that Sirius has taken up some sort of residence at the Shrieking Shack during PoA. So why wouldn't he have used *that* tunnel? Especially after enlisting Crookshank's help, he would have had no problem freezing the tree. There are no dememtors that close to the castle. In dog form, after nightfall, he could have easily slunk across the grounds and found his way into the building (he is a marauder, after all, there have to be other entrances besides the main one). Otherwise if he were using the witch's hump, why would Harry have seen him outside with Crookshanks? Why sneak into the castle, only to sneak outside it when he could just as easily used the shrieking shack tunnel? Also, don't you think the Owners of Honeydukes would have noticed a big black dog coming and going from their cellar? They *do* live there. I suppose it's possible, but it seems unlikely, while the shrieking shack tunnel is so much more convenient. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moongirlk at yahoo.com Tue Mar 5 23:55:04 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 23:55:04 -0000 Subject: More on Parenting Styles In-Reply-To: <70.18cb88f3.29b629ed@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36068 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > I love Molly. Of course she's not a perfect parent. Which of us is? There > seems to me to be an ironical situation on this list when it comes to > parenting. We like our good guys grey, many want their bad guys grey, but > when it comes to parents, they're supposed to be squeaky clean, bright, > shining white and from where I'm standing it just ain't like that! I'm having a hard time figuring out where I stand on the Molly/Ron thread. I love Ron and I *do* think he falls through the cracks some in regards to Molly, but I love Molly too, and I think she's a good mother. Having a hard time resolving these two things. I agree with Tabouli that Ron and the others all seem to know that they are loved and supported, even if Ron sometimes notices that he is not being... noticed all that much, and I think Molly tries very hard to make it clear to her kids that she cares. The Weasley sweaters are one of the clearest indications that she cares. Sure, they're not well-off, but she could easily give the kids Christmas gifts that didn't require so much work. She spends time knitting a sweater for each of them because it *means* something, and to Fred and George's credit, they seem to realize this. Eloise again: <> It was a little bothered by her always forgetting that Ron hates maroon, and I see what Debbie means when she says this is a small indicator that she doesn't know him as well as she thinks she does, but I think that may be because Ron, while maybe he grumbles somewhat openly in front of his best friend, doesn't complain *to* his mother. Ron, it seems to me, fancies himself a bit of a stoic. He's not a very good one, mind you, since we all know what's on his mind pretty much all the time, but I think he feels like he *should* be. Even when he complains about the sandwiches on the train, he immediately tries to brush it all aside, not wanting to sound ungrateful or make his mother look bad. I think this is the way he is with his parents, and I think it's an extension of his insecurities. What Tabouli said resonates with me: <> I know I felt that way as a kid. I'm only one of two kids, but my sister was pretty enough and talented enough and well-liked enough for me to feel inadequate growing up, and then she also got into trouble enough that I, the easiest child in the world (according to my mother, who, bless her, still thinks that was a good thing) felt completely invisible at times. I spent the first, most confusing years of adolescence alone in front of the TV because the problems my sister was having took up most of the family's time while also disinclining my parents to let me out of their sight, lest history repeat itself. I still feel socially inept as a result, but I cannot and would not in the least blame any of this on my parents or my sister now, because now I *know* that had I made a fuss and asked for the attention I needed, I would have gotten it, but at the time, I felt that it was supremely important that I stay out of the way and not make life any harder for anyone. It wasn't them making me feel this way, but my natural tendencies - desire to please, and avoidance of conflict being two of my most highly held values throughout my life (to this day I literally get a swimmy feeling in my head if I dare to engage in conflict that could be avoided if I just allowed myself to be slighted). Eloise again: <> This may be projecting due to what I described above, but as others have said, there's no real indication that Ron complains in front of his mother about the sandwiches or the maroon, and while he did complain about the dress robes in almost a last-straw desperate way (which I once or twice did to my mother, and she was literally shocked that I'd been upset about anything at all because I'd gone out of my way ot hide it until said last-straw moment), I think he mostly tries to dowplay it all in front of her because he knows that she doesn't have a lot of control over a lot of what bothers him. So I think if Molly knew how he felt, she'd probably do her best to change the things she could, but I don't think Ron actually gives her the opportunity. And, in a direction that's less about my projecting my own experiences, Ron does have a certain habit of self-deprecation (or posession-deprecation, or relative object and people-deprecation... whatever). He grumbles about Scabbers, but PoA proved that he really did care about the lazy rat, and he acts the same way about Errol, and later about Pig. I see that as an indication that it's a general tendency that probably carries over into other belongings and even his family. He loves them, and will defend them against all takers, but it doesn't stop him from wishing things were a little different. kimberly who was also going to comment on Deb's statement, which started with this: <> But realized that she's already probably gone on too long. From tanie_05 at hotmail.com Wed Mar 6 03:04:10 2002 From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 03:04:10 -0000 Subject: Sir Nicholas Porpington (AKA Nearly Headless Nick) Re: The Riddle House Riddles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36069 mariahisabel wrote: > What about nearly headless nick? Dont you think he probably would > have known that he was going to be executed and come up with some > magical way to overcome his difficulty? Apparate out of the dungeon > or wherever he was, put some anti severing charm on himself or > something? to me it just doesnt make sense that he wouldnt have been > able to protect himself in anyway, even if his wand had been > confiscted (other magical folk can preform magic without a wand > regularly or because of high emotions during a stressful > time ). and he must have been a wizard because otherwise why > would he be hanging out in Hogwarts after his death? Somehow I dont > think that ole "hoggy hoggy hogwarts" it the hottest spot for all > ghosts to be. So why didnt he protect himself if he knew about his > impending death? Anyone interested in giving me their ideas or > clueing me in that duh! everyones debated that already? Wait...wait...wait. Who said Nearly Headless Nick was a wizard in the first place? Just because he's a Hogwarts ghost doesn't mean he *has* to be magical. But let's go on the proposal that he was a wizard. Wouldn't he be a bit suspicious if no matter how many times they tried to cut off his head, it wouldn't be severed? Maybe he was unexpectedly executed. Like maybe someone grabbed him from off the street & sent him straight to the executioner's block, where they already had an ax (or sword or whatever they used) waiting for him. That way no spontaneous magic could be done. He wouldn't have the time to react. Hmmmm......food for thought........ -Kyrstyne From rose at swicegood.com Wed Mar 6 00:22:13 2002 From: rose at swicegood.com (roseswicegood) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:22:13 -0000 Subject: More on Parenting Styles (Ron / Molly) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36070 Debbie wrote: > It's the apparent lack of attention that troubles me, and therefore > it troubles me more that she lavishes attention on the famous Harry > Potter, even though it's natural for her to reach out to Harry, who > really needs some mothering, and it's also evident from what she does > for Harry at the end of GoF that one of her strengths is her ability > to provide comfort to a troubled child (probably an adult as well). Thanks for your kind words about Molly. She is my favorite character, she showed a kindness to Harry from the very beginning that I believe has nothing to do with his being 'famous'. She knows he's orphaned, she knows the Dursley's are vile, and it is a natural reaction to respond with kindness. I have two teenage boys of my own. She's learning that Ron doesn't wish to be babied, IMHO, from book I. He doesn't need her to hound him. I think as a mother of three now all teens, I understand. BTW, the other boys, Fred, George and Percy don't like the sweaters either. Is Ron complaining so much about the color, or the fact that they can have so little? > We also see hints of this in comments such as Ron's where he offers > to make Hagrid tea (I believe this is in PoA when he's upset over > Buckbeak) because "it's what my Mum does." But I'm concerned that > Ron isn't getting what he needs from Molly and it could create > problems. No, I think he knows he's loved in his own way. He knows she has to divide herself with so many. Geez...I like Ron, too! I don't think Ron would ever want Harry's problems. > Of course, it's always possible that JKR is so focused on Harry that she ignores Ron. No, Ron is a very special and necessary character in Harry's 'triad'. I think Ron adds strength to Harry's side. He acknowledged his mistake in GoF, he's perceptive. He knows Harry doesn't want the attention, but trouble always does seem to follow him... That's the only explanation I have for Bill's > saying goodbye only to Mrs. Weasley and Harry at the end of GoF > before going off to alert Arthur. She (Molly) was distressed and Bill knew it. Harry had gone through his ordeal and needed the extra clap on the shoulder. Perhaps Bill knows that Ron is strong and doesn't need his brother's approval. It's tough with boys... > Debbie, who has a 7-year-old Ron-clone at home and therefore cannot > possibly dislike Ron, frustrating as he can be at times, and > therefore feels compelled to mother him and/or defend him, as > necessary, relying on others to provide the negative feedback Thanks for letting me do that, too. Rose (Molly fan from Day One--I think it was the 'plump' remark--I can identify) From saintbacchus at yahoo.com Tue Mar 5 20:32:20 2002 From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 20:32:20 -0000 Subject: Character complexity, cliches, 1/8 blood, and Binky Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36071 Nyarth: << "How complex are any of Rowling's other characters? Some could argue, not very. A lot of the HP characters tend to be two-dimensional caricatures. Very entertaining, but not very complicated. Snape's a multi-faceted mystery now, because we don't understand what motivates him, but once this is explained, why should he remain anymore complex than any other character in the book?" >> Mmmmmmmm...she has a point about the characters being entertaining but two-dimensional, to be sure. However, in Snape's case, I think he'll remain complex. Or at least conflicted. It's rather fascinating that he has been a Death Eater, which implies a total lack of morality ala Voldemort's own philosophy, yet chooses to honor his life-debt to James Potter even though he despised James. Yes, this could be explained away by a possible fear of Voldemort's return, but I hope it won't be. I like my characters emotionally crippled. ^_^ << But I do think she has a point to a certain extent. Lupin is a were-wolf, on top of everything else he is, and Hagrid is a half-giant. Do they escape walking cliche-dom? Um, not really IMHO but we still love them for it... right? Or wrong? >> I think Snape is much more of a cliche than these two (if he is a vampire, which I heartily believe he is not). Giants are supposed to be brutish and mean, and Hagrid has definitely got heart. As for Lupin...well, I don't know what werewolf cliches are, I guess. Boggles: << Yes, but barring the "Petunia is a Squib and at least one of the Evanses was a wizard/witch" theories, Harry still has two Muggle grandparents and qualifies under the ancestors-theory. I can't make the simple status-of-parents version fit either with Riddle's comment, Ron's, or Ernie's, above. >> I bow to your superior book-learnin'. I like your one-eighth theory; thus far, I've found the parallels to real-world racial tension striking, and this fits very well with that viewpoint. Incidentally, I really love the idea that Petunia is a squib, but I don't buy it. Sigh. Wild speculation mode! Okay, so Lavender Brown's bunny is named Binky, right? Binky the rabbit is also the hero of Matt Groening's Life in Hell comic strip. Is this a coincidence or a clue? Talk amongst yourselves. ^_^ --Anna From jloveys at zoom.co.uk Tue Mar 5 23:39:55 2002 From: jloveys at zoom.co.uk (Jedi Knight Jo) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 23:39:55 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dastardly Deeds Drawer, Molly & Ron References: <002b01c1c39c$855773a0$7f33c2cb@price> Message-ID: <008e01c1c49f$0eec5ce0$c6b868d5@jody> No: HPFGUIDX 36072 >>You know, there's a potential plot device here. Who knows what light could be shed on Snape, Florence, Filch, Tom Riddle, Hagrid and sundry other mysterious pasts if only JKR would send someone up to forage in that file! Surely Dobby, at least, could sneak into Filch's office and start rummaging...<< Tabouli. I'm new here, and I have a question. I keep seeing the name Florence appearing in posts. Who is Florence? Like this message, I've seen her listes among Canon characters, but I dont' remember her name anywhere. --Jo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aegeus86 at aol.com Wed Mar 6 02:09:21 2002 From: Aegeus86 at aol.com (Aegeus86 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:09:21 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] More on Parenting Styles Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36073 Bernadette wrote: > I think what a lot of us are overlooking is that Rowlings has had > the guts to write a "good" mom who isn't perfect. Most of us > "good" moms aren't perfect in this life. It would have been > awfully easy for her to have made Molly the Martha Stewart of the > Potterverse, instead of having flaws just like a real person. I totally agree with this, and would like to expand a little. I think Rowling's portrayal of Molly is indicative of a perfect mom, or as perfect a mom as humanly possible. I think Molly is amazing, to be able to bring up all those Weaslys and still have a cheery outlook on life. I can't even begin to imagine how cynical it would make me to have had the Weasley children as my own. There's Bill, who has the whole punk-rock thing going on; Charlie; who works with *dragons*; Percy, whose boss was being controlled by *Voldemort*; Fred and George, (need I say anything about those two?); Ron, who is Harry's best friend and is always getting into life threatening scrapes; and Ginny, who apart from having to protect because she is the only girl, there was all the craziness with the Chamber of Secrets. If you look back at it and see all that JKR put the Weaslys through and then look at how well Molly has faired through all of it, I doubt that anyone could not think that Molly was the closest thing to a perfect mother that one could have. And on the Martha Stewart comment -- I'm so glad JKR didn't base Molly off her, because she is sleazy. No one in her family will talk to her because she's alienated them, and she even *paid* actors to play her loving family for a K-Mart commercial. In a way Martha Stewart is almost the antithesis of Molly -- she is fake, whereas Molly is the real thing. How's that for my first post to the group? ~Aegeus First Mate, SS Ares Writer of Haiku to inspire fic authors Head of the "Get Keith to Like Draco and Read Snitch!" committee Proud H/H and H/D shipper! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From starling823 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 6 06:23:19 2002 From: starling823 at yahoo.com (Starling) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 01:23:19 -0500 Subject: Molly and the Twins, career-wise References: <1015390530.3101.61431.m10@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001401c1c4d8$04281400$3d74e280@cc.binghamton.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 36074 As a soon-to-be college graduate, I would like to jump up to bat for Molly here in regard to her attitude towards the twins, and since I"m not a mom myself (well, not for a good long while anyway) I'll cite my mom instead. My mother is deathly afraid I am goign to catch the black death and not have health insurance while I'm in that strange nebulous place called "hunting for one's first job." She has listed all the diseases I could get, recited the pain of broken bones and ingrown toenails, screeched about the cost of my eyeglasses. She doesn't care what job it is I get, she doesn't care if I like it or if it requires me putting up with some fat ugly boss who calls me "sweetie," makes me fix the coffee and hits my butt whenever he feels like it. (OK, well that would concern her,but that's not my point... ) As long as I have a health plan, I'll be OK in her eyes, because then she I can pay the hospital if I get...in a car accident, or hit by a Mack truck, or an asteriod falls on my head... This is what I was think of as I read everyone's comments on Molly's attitude towards the twins' plans. We don't know what her reaction to Bill and Charlie's plans were, but they are now settled in stable careers. Percy is planning on the Ministry, and Percy being Percy, will probably be running the whole thing in five years. But Fred and George come home with plans for a magic store. There's a war coming, I'm sure the wizarding economy is unstable, and the whole thing is just incredibly risky. I don't think Molly's reacting in dislike of their choice. I think she's reacting fearfully, afraid that they are throwing themselves away on the cruel vagaries of the buying public. She wants her sons to be successful -- dare we say, in a better situation to raise their children than she and Arthur were/are? Molly definately isn't perfect, but she loves all her children fiercely, and like all fierce mothers (mine included!) she is at times illogical. That doesn't dimish her love in any way, it's just one of her quirks, and to my mind, explains her behavior quite well (a certain Easter present comes to mind... ) Voldemort better watch out...the only thing worse than a woman scorned is a mother who finds out someone's hurt her kids. Abbie, would is really hoping the Peace Corps is nice and accepts her so she won't have to endure the humiliation of job hunting in New York City during an economic downturn. (Anyone hiring?) starling823 at yahoo.com "Harry, just go down to the lake tomorrow, right, stick your head in, yell at the merpeople to give back whatever they've nicked and see if they chuck it out. Best you can do, mate." -Ron, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From oppen at cnsinternet.com Wed Mar 6 06:36:22 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 00:36:22 -0600 Subject: More thoughts on two different subjects... Message-ID: <006a01c1c4d9$3befc080$f6c71bce@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 36075 Firstly, thanks to whoever pointed out my mistake earlier---I _meant_ that Pettigrew would have used the same Tickling charm on Sirius that was used in the Duelling Club, but put down "Cheering Charm" instead. I do think that this is a theory that is, at least, compatible with the known facts and doesn't require any huge plots on the parts of the wizards who found Sirius to explain. Secondly---although I don't think Molly Weasley is a _perfect_ mother, she's the best mother in the HP series by a long shot, at least that we get to see. (I will stipulate that the competition is not exactly fierce---compared to Petunia Dursley, almost anybody's a good mother) I like her largely _because_ she immediately bonds with Harry as soon as she really gets to meet him---she knows from what she's heard from Ron (and probably other sources; Harry _is_ famous, after all) that he's in a really horrid situation at the Dursleys' place, and her warm heart goes out to him. She knows that even though he's "the Boy who Lived," the famous Harry Potter, he's still an abused, emotionally-starved child, and she has what he needs in abundance. The Weasleys are far more Harry's "family" than the Dursleys ever could be, IMNSHO. Even if the Dursleys had a road-to-Damascus experience and started trying to be nice to him, I don't think he'd ever really trust them or be willing to bond with them. If he had the chance to make a choice for himself, my bet is that he'd want to live with the Weasleys forever...and that Molly would find a way to make it happen. I would _so_ love to see a scene where Molly Weasley gives the Dursleys what-for, maybe even not just for depriving Harry, but for rendering Dudley all but unable to function in the big outside world. I can just see it...Ron, outside, turning to Harry and Hermione in awe and saying "Man alive, I can't believe my Mum even _knew_ that kind of language!" She's tactful enough not to criticize the Dursleys directly in front of Harry---whether she likes them or hates them, they _are_ his relatives and caregivers---but I'd bet Galleons to Confederate dollars that, over a cuppa with her best girlfriends, she is devastatingly frank: "I absolutely can't believe it, Vi! I mean, he's one of the sweetest, most polite boys I've ever seen, and those dreadful Dursley people treat him like some sort of bug that's infested their lives! Their own son is spoilt beyond belief, and they haven't so much as a bone to throw to poor Harry!" From catlady at wicca.net Wed Mar 6 07:01:39 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 07:01:39 -0000 Subject: Percy joke / grandparents / life-debt / Florence Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36076 Amy Z wrote: > Elkins again: > > The pomposity and the puffing and the self-aggrandizement all > > seem to be how Percy responds to feeling insecure and unhappy. > I agree, and hereby declare this Be Nice to Percy Week (slogan: A > Happy Percy is a Less Pompous Percy). Well, "Wood's Keeper" has done his part by getting Percy laid. ( Fanfic reference) Jen Fer wrote: > Where are the grandparents? Well, Susan Bones's grandparents are the Bones who were mentioned by Hagrid as having been murdered by Voldemort, like the Potters, Prewetts, and McKinnons. http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ found the citation: http://www.yahooligans.com/content/chat/jkrowlingchat.html "Q: asks: There is a girl named Susan Bones who was sorted in the first book and there was a family called the Bones that Voldemort tried to destroy, is this a coincidence or will Harry meet her in future books? jkrowling_bn: Susan Bones' grandparents were killed by Voldemort!" Anna St. Bacchus wrote: > It's rather fascinating that he has been a > Death Eater, which implies a total lack of morality ala > Voldemort's own philosophy, yet chooses to honor his > life-debt to James Potter even though he despised James. "When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it creates a certain bond between them... " "This is magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable" Maybe the life-debt between wizards is a law of nature rather than a law of ethics... I mean, it's like magnetism or gravity or a chemical reaction... I'm not explaining this at all well, but if an unpaid wizarding life-debt acts automatically on the debtor, then self-interest might well motivate the debtor to try to get it paid as soon as possible. There was some speculation recently that Crouch Jr owed life-debt to his father for rescuing him from Azkaban and, far from paying the debt, he *killed* the creditor, and the abused life-debt compelled him to make conventional Evil Overlord mistakes, such as being so entranced by the sound of his own voice speechifying at Harry that he didn't notice Dumbledore, et alia coming to catch him and rescue Harry. Jedi Knight Jo wrote: > Who is Florence? When Harry sees Dumbledore looking into his Pensieve and seeing Bertha Jorkins, the image of Bertha as a teen-ager rises from the Pensieve and says something about: "He hexed me, sir! And all I did was tell him I'd seen him kissing Florence behind the greenhouses!" and something indicating that Bertha had deliberately followed 'him' and Florence to spy on them behind the greenhouse. Dumbledore mourns: "But why, Bertha, did you have to follow him?" It looks like just Dumbledore remembering a past example of Bertha getting herself into trouble by snooping, as parallel to her getting herself killed by snooping into Pettigrew when she ran into him in Albania. But people who theorize that *nothing* JKR says is just a throw-away line are speculating on what the great revelation about Florence will be. From elfundeb at aol.com Wed Mar 6 03:43:19 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 03:43:19 -0000 Subject: More on Parenting Styles In-Reply-To: <70.18cb88f3.29b629ed@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36077 I promise, this is my last response on this topic. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > > I love Molly. Of course she's not a perfect parent. Which of us is? There > seems to me to be an ironical situation on this list when it comes to > parenting. We like our good guys grey, many want their bad guys grey, but > when it comes to parents, they're supposed to be squeaky clean, bright, > shining white and from where I'm standing it just ain't like that! > > Like Molly, I shout ( but not as > effectively, alas!). I often get it wrong. I often regret the way I've > handled situations. But I'm sure my kids know that they're loved (we tell > each other often enough) and that however stressy Mum is, she's actually got > their best interests at heart. That's how I see Molly. I doubt that most of us who have criticized Molly think she is a bad parent, or think her kids don't know they're loved. I don't doubt that she would sacrifice herself for any of her children, and they know that. Nor do we want her to be perfect (pinning on my PACMAN badge as I say this). I doubt most of us parents would want our own parenting skills put under a perfection microscope -- we would all fail miserably! And Molly has drawn a particularly tough assignment with five children at home whose needs are so different. Rather, I've tried to focus in this debate on the effect of her parenting on Ron, and no one seems to have challenged the assertion that Molly pays less attention to him than the others. > > As Jo says, Molly treats her kids differently from each other. That's because > they're individuals. . > > > She's proud of Percy, but much of the pride expressed, the favouritism seen > by some, seems to be for the benefit of the twins. Actually, this is one of my biggest concerns about the Molly/Ron relationship. Molly can't be everything to all of her children, and she has effectively adapted her style to deal as effectively as she can with the twins, who outwardly are the two most in need of correcting. Given the number of Molly/twins episodes we have seen in the last three books, they must happen quite frequently. However, whatever the beneficial effect of her extolling Percy's virtues on the twins, it seems clear that they have affected Ron very negatively. Ron doesn't want negative attention, so he tries to deal with Molly's criticism of the twins by escaping (at least that's what he tries to do when Harry's around). This is natural enough, but it allows Molly not to notice his reactions. On the flip side, I think he really craves approval from Molly, but the Molly/Percy/Twins dynamic has convinced him he needs to do something really spectacular to deserve it. Another collateral consequence of this dynamic is that Ron has developed, if not a dislike, at least suspicions about Percy. This is really a shame, because I think Ron is more like Percy than any other member of his family and if it were not for Molly's fueling resentment of Percy among his younger brothers, fueling increased pompousness/ambition/sensitivity on Percy's part, Percy could have served as a good mentor for Ron. I'm not saying that it's > easy being the youngest boy, who gets everything second-hand when he has a > younger sibling, who because of her sex, gets new stuff ( though not > everything, books, for example), its not; but he does have a bit of a chip > on his shoulder. [snip] We're affluent enough that I can give my younger girls > some new stuff to supplement the second hand, but it must hurt Molly. Hurt, > because she doesn't want to give her child second best, hurt because she's > criticised for something over which she has no control. If there's one thing I've learned from discussion groups such as this is that we all have different life experiences that inform our views on each discussion topic, and this one is no different. I'm very touchy on the matter of hand-me-down clothes, since by accident of relative age, gender and size I was the only person in my family to wear them. Because I was small and we were less affluent than most in my school, I was often expected to wear hand-me-downs in hideous colors (that my mother adored) and from younger children that were too childish for me. So nothing in HP made me empathize with Ron more than his dress robes. And although maybe Ron has never told Molly that he hates maroon, I still have a vision of Molly at the thrift shop selecting the lace-cuff robes over another choice in a different color that Molly didn't like. > > A child wants you to > be there simply because you love them and they are the most important thing > in the world to you. > None of us is a perfect parent. But there is a concept, I should know where > it comes from, but I'm afraid I forget, of the 'Good enough' parent. On good > days, perhaps I'm better than that, but it's what I cling to when the going > gets tough, and I'm sure that Molly is good enough. > I only hope that I'm "good enough" -- which would be a tremendous compliment. Eloise, you, on the other hand, sound like a highly effective parent. Debbie, who will henceforth shut up on this topic now that I've ground my axe into the stump From rshuson80 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 6 00:34:37 2002 From: rshuson80 at yahoo.com (nyarth_meow) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:34:37 -0000 Subject: The real vampire In-Reply-To: <3C838CD0.3A8FD2E4@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36078 Amy Z quoted > > passage from PA 3: > > > > "Harry looked into the shadowed eyes of Sirius Black, the only part of the > > sunken face that seemed alive. Harry had never met a vampire, but he had > > seen pictures of them in his Defense Against the Dark Arts classes, and > > Black, with his waxy white skin, looked just like one." > > I noticed this, but chose to ignore it, as it doesn't fit in with my pet theory! (Oh come on now, the best of us do it!) Maybe Rowling is throwing us a red herring? Or perhaps the Snape/Vampire references are the red herrings? This could get confusing! Adhara says: >Vampires are obliged to sleep during the day which would interfere with a school timetable. Snape couldn't manage that. Think how often we've seen Snape prowling round the castle at night, though. Indeed, Harry can barely venture out of his room after lights out without running into the Potions Master. He does seem to have rather nocturnal habits. As for vampires being obliged to sleep during the day, vampires are so variously used and represented in global folklore, there's really no one thing you can say is true to all vampires. Our western ideas are influenced by Bram Stoker's Dracula, but if I recall, didn't Dracula venture out in the light sometimes? My theory is that Snape does seem to have some vampire characteristics, but his ability to move around in daylight, eat food and not drink the blood of his students could be explained by the half-vampire theory. We've had a half-giant, afterall. There is a precedent in folklore for part vampires. In Eastern European traditions, they are called dhampirs or dhamphirs, and they are the result of a rape of a human woman by a male vampire. Traditionally, dhampir have no overtly vampire characteristics, but they do have the abilty to "see" invisible vampires. For this reason, they were often vampire hunters. They would ride into your village, see your invisible vampires, kill your invisible vampires, charge you an extortionate amount of money and ride out. Admittedly, this smacks more of Gilderoy Lockhart than Snape, but such things as part-vampires do exist. JKR also admits she twists folklore to her own ends sometimes. make of it what you will! -Nyarth From deadstop at gte.net Wed Mar 6 07:46:37 2002 From: deadstop at gte.net (Stacy Stroud) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 02:46:37 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 1715 In-Reply-To: <1015390530.3101.61431.m10@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20020306023735.00aa7c88@mail.gte.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36079 At 04:55 AM 3/6/2002 +0000, you wrote: >I would suspect, as the map shows * here and now * not * there and then * (if that makes sense) the person using the map would has, as far as I can make out, sees what is there at present [...] Lupin would, I think, only see Harry and Hermione once. But even though time travel is involved, we're not talking about two different time periods here. There was a single, specific three-hour period in which there were two Harrys and two Hermiones running around. I can think of no reason why both would not have been on the Map. One set of H&H may have come *from* a future time, but they spent that three hours living simultaneously with their slightly-younger selves. Similarly, when Hermione was spending most of the year using the Time Turner to take two classes in each period, there would have been Hermiones in two different classrooms at the same time. I believe they both would have shown up on the Map, as both were physically there. If the Map has no trouble picking out people in invisibility cloaks or pulling up the real names of shapeshifters, I can't imagine it would be confused by someone sitting there quite openly in public, even if there did happen to be an "extra" copy of the person elsewhere in the castle at the same time. Stacy Stroud (deadstop at gte.net) Hex Entertainment, Inc. (http://www.hexgames.com) From uncmark at yahoo.com Wed Mar 6 07:44:15 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 07:44:15 -0000 Subject: The Time Turner and the Marauder's Map In-Reply-To: <006701c1c3ac$8a2d4b60$eb86bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36080 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Felicia Rickmann" wrote: > I don't know if its been discussed, but I wondered > if a person using a time turner shows up more than > once on the map. If so why doesn't Lupin comment that > he say Harry and Hermonie twice by Hagrid's hut? I > figure a person only shows up once and that would be > for his or her first time though the events. I'd be concerned with the size of the map and what it covers. From the description Hogwarts has 142 staircases and estimates of 400-1000 students, around 7 floors, plus towers, dungeons, passages that the map shows in detail sharp enough to show individual students on a parchment no bigger than 2 foot by 2 foot( my guess from the description. It can be folded up into a pocket and shoen on one desktop.) I imagine a magical view that zooms in on certain areas. It would follow the viewers focus and would highlight a certain area or maybe a certain person. The viewers focus is of particular importance. Harry never mentioned seeing a Peter Pettigrew on the map and I'm sure he viewed Griffindor Tower several times (He would have recognized a strange name). I'm sure Fred and George also looked into Ron and Harry's room on occasion, but didn't see Pettigrew. Harry did mention seeing Mrs. Norris the cat. (This spawned a theory that Norris is an anamagus) I think, however that it was because Harry would have looked out Norris and Filch. Lupin knew Pettigrew as a rat so saw Pettigrew's name. I'm guessing he kept the Whomping Willow Tunnel under survaillance. ALSO as my view of the Marauder's Map follows the viewer It might show one Hermione, but the viewer would not look for a second. Does this make any sense? Uncmark From siskiou at earthlink.net Tue Mar 5 20:48:24 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:48:24 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Molly Weasly's parenting style In-Reply-To: <20020304205937.25212.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net> References: <20020304205937.25212.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net> Message-ID: <4355709798.20020305124824@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36081 Hi, Monday, March 04, 2002, 12:59:37 PM, Vicky wrote: > I agreee with the several poster who have stated that we need to give > Molly Weaslya break whenit comes to her parenting-esp of Ron! Just a short note to regarding giving Molly a break: Of course nobody is perfect! And I don't see Molly as a horrible parent at all, just sometimes thoughtless. Maybe there should be some sort of middle ground. It seems people see things either entirely as "Molly's fault" or entirely as Ron's, claiming it's just in his personality that he always needs something to complain about. But reality is probably that it's a mix of both. When Ron is older, he may see things in a different light, but at his age, most kids are still very self centered and just see everything regarding how it affects them personally. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From huntleyl at mssm.org Wed Mar 6 00:16:44 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 19:16:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] BBC article mention of H/Hr SHIP mentions References: <20020305160749.3864.qmail@web13509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001601c1c4a4$331e7800$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 36082 I said: > Harrumph. They're kids, aren't they? and Lizgiz countered: >Nope. Sorry. They're 15. Full reproductive maturity >has been attained. (not that *that* should be >addressed. There are 6 year olds who love Harry.) ahh..that's what I meant..15...kids..just cause *technically* they are physically able to reproduce like sex-crazed bunnie-rabbits, doesn't make them adults (okay, I know, the world of dating is not confined to grownups) -- at least not in my book. I admit most kids at this age would be well into their dating years, I've always loved HP for the way it ignored this topic for as long as it did. Not that I don't love sexual tension in other books, but HP has always sort of been my safe haven away from all that. You see what I mean? I guess I could put up with a kiss or two, but anything more than that (marriage??!!) and I will be very, very upset. Then I said: >...and H/G No, please no. and Lizgiz said: >I assume you mean H/Hr? Or, um, who's G? Nope, I meant H/G. Harry and Ginny. Sorry bout that, the abbreviations can be kinda tricky sometimes.*sympathetic smile* laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Aegeus86 at aol.com Tue Mar 5 22:50:04 2002 From: Aegeus86 at aol.com (Aegeus86 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:50:04 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] BBC article mention of H/Hr SHIP mentions Message-ID: <97.240cd7b9.29b6a59c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36083 Lizgiz wrote: > Laura wrote: >>...and H/G No, please no. > >I assume you mean H/Hr? Or, um, who's G? G would generally be Ginny. It seems that the original poster (Laura Huntley) does not like Harry/Ginny. ~Aegeus First Mate, SS Ares Writer of Haiku to inspire fic authors Head of the "Get Keith to Like Draco and Read Snitch!" committee Proud H/H and H/D shipper! From adatole at yahoo.com Wed Mar 6 09:34:20 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (adatole) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:34:20 -0000 Subject: Florence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36084 > Jedi Knight Jo wrote: > > > Who is Florence? "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > When Harry sees Dumbledore looking into his Pensieve and seeing > Bertha Jorkins, the image of Bertha as a teen-ager rises from the > Pensieve and says something about: "He hexed me, sir! And all I did > was tell him I'd seen him kissing Florence behind the greenhouses!" > and something indicating that Bertha had deliberately followed 'him' > and Florence to spy on them behind the greenhouse. Dumbledore mourns: > "But why, Bertha, did you have to follow him?" It looks like just > Dumbledore remembering a past example of Bertha getting herself into > trouble by snooping, as parallel to her getting herself killed by > snooping into Pettigrew when she ran into him in Albania. But people > who theorize that *nothing* JKR says is just a throw-away line are > speculating on what the great revelation about Florence will be. *************** At the risk of starting a fanfic, do we think there is any link to *MR.* Florence Fortescue, owner of the ice cream shop on Diagon Alley, the one who feeds Harry full of sundays and advises him on mediecal witch burnings during those last few weeks of summer in PoA? Unless I've missed M. Fortescue's gender. In which case this could well be another link. Leon From lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 6 12:10:56 2002 From: lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com (Ms Lizard Gizzard) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 04:10:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] SHIPs and Young Love In-Reply-To: <001601c1c4a4$331e7800$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: <20020306121056.40742.qmail@web13508.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36085 Laura said: >I admit most kids at this age would be well into their > dating years, I've always loved HP for the way it > ignored this topic for as long as it did. Not that > I don't love sexual tension in other books, but HP > has always sort of been my safe haven away from all > that. I agree that the series is a relaxing break from the constant in-your-face sex of modern literature, but I don't think the freedom from descriptive sex will keep JK from providing some romantic tension between the teenaged characters. I had inferred from James and Lily's young marriage (Harry was born when she was 20) and others that the wizard world does seem to marry young. The Weasley's certainly fell in love while they were at Hogwarts. I doubt that they waited long after graduation to marry. (It's not the worst thing that can happen. I fell in love at 16, married at 19, had my first kid at 20 and am now 33, happily married with 4 kids (and broke, so what?)) The Weasley's and Potters may not be a representative sample, but their influence upon their own children can't be put aside. While the grown Weasley men have put off marriage, it may be that they haven't felt they could afford to support a family yet. Harry, on the other hand, has a large inheiritance. He would certainly be able to marry at any age. And Ginny, having grown up in a large, loving family, might be ready to start her own as soon as possible. > and Lizgiz said: > >I assume you mean H/Hr? Or, um, who's G? > and Laura replied: > Nope, I meant H/G. Harry and Ginny. Sorry bout > that, the abbreviations can be kinda tricky > sometimes.*sympathetic smile* Oh. Sheesh! How do I always forget Ginny? She's practically invisible. By the way, I mean none of these statements as predictions. Lizgiz __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From heidit at netbox.com Wed Mar 6 12:16:35 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 07:16:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Florence In-Reply-To: 286 Message-ID: <16600678.637808268@imcingular.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36086 It's not Florence Fortescue - it's Floreanz. And for more on similar names in canon run a search on the webview messages section on Firenze (yesn the centaur) 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: "adatole" Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Florence Real-To: "adatole" > Jedi Knight Jo wrote: > > > Who is Florence? "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > When Harry sees Dumbledore looking into his Pensieve and seeing > Bertha Jorkins, the image of Bertha as a teen-ager rises from the > Pensieve and says something about: "He hexed me, sir! And all I did > was tell him I'd seen him kissing Florence behind the greenhouses!" > and something indicating that Bertha had deliberately followed 'him' > and Florence to spy on them behind the greenhouse. Dumbledore mourns: > "But why, Bertha, did you have to follow him?" It looks like just > Dumbledore remembering a past example of Bertha getting herself into > trouble by snooping, as parallel to her getting herself killed by > snooping into Pettigrew when she ran into him in Albania. But people > who theorize that *nothing* JKR says is just a throw-away line are > speculating on what the great revelation about Florence will be. *************** At the risk of starting a fanfic, do we think there is any link to *MR.* Florence Fortescue, owner of the ice cream shop on Diagon Alley, the one who feeds Harry full of sundays and advises him on mediecal witch burnings during those last few weeks of summer in PoA? Unless I've missed M. Fortescue's gender. In which case this could well be another link. Leon ________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 naama_gat at hotmail.com Wed Mar 6 12:32:51 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 12:32:51 -0000 Subject: Source of "Good Enough Mother" (WAS Re: More on Parenting Styles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36087 > A child wants you to > > be there simply because you love them and they are the most > important thing > > in the world to you. > > None of us is a perfect parent. But there is a concept, I should > know where > > it comes from, but I'm afraid I forget, of the 'Good enough' > parent. On good > > days, perhaps I'm better than that, but it's what I cling to when > the going > > gets tough, and I'm sure that Molly is good enough. > It was Winnicott who coined the term "good enough mother." "British psychoanalyst Donald Woods Winnicott was early convinced, by his own clinical experience as paediatrician and child psychiatrist, of the over-riding importance, to psychic health, of the first weeks and months of infancy. This implies, of course, the mother's essential role at the very outset of the maturational process. The "good-enough mother" (an odd term, by which however he only meant an ordinary woman whose maternal instincts are not deflected by her own disabilities or by so-called "expert" advice) protects her infant from the primitive anxieties; she lets it enjoy that illusion of omnipotence which will later be a source of creativity and "contributing in", but she also provides for disillusion (reality- sense) without despair." (from http://home.sol.no/~vals/winniA.html) IMO, Molly is a good enough mother, and then some. I think Abby's description of her as a "fierce mother" who can get a trifle illogical is just perfect. That's exactly my take on her. The first and most consistent adjective applied to her is kindness. Molly's behavior to her kids should be taken within this context, and in this context, the incidents discussed (corned-beef, maroon, etc.) become evidence of her (rather lovable) imperfections and not symptoms of neglect. I also think that Ron's insecurities arise from the whole familial situation - many siblings with a lot of success stories. I think that he has long gone passed the age where self-esteem arises solely from parental attitude. At some point (10? 12?), you start to compare yourself with others (your siblings and your peers), you feel the need for objective success. He is at that age. I'd say that Molly's attention, or lack thereof, has little to do with his present insecurities (just as it has little to do with Ginny's insecurities). To generalise - life is tough, and good parenting doesn't preclude any and all insecurities in the child, it provides a strong base from which to overcome them - with time. Naama From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Mar 6 13:12:07 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 13:12:07 -0000 Subject: Where are the grandparents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36088 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "drjennyfer" wrote: > Hi! > I'm new here, so you've probably discussed this already (sorry!) but > on re-reading the books, I noticed the apparent lack of grandparents > throughout. With the exception of Neville's Gran, no grandparents > ever seem to be mentioned. (Voldemort killed his at the beginning of > GoF but they were his father's parents and therefore muggles.) We > know that wizards live longer than Muggles, so they can't all be > dead. > Is it merely that they are unimportant to the story/plot? > Ron does mention a grandfather who plays/played chess, Hermione... we don't even know much of her *parents*, only that they're muggle-dentists... Harry-- all dead. (Since Petunia and Dudley are his ONLY relatives). All other characters aren't included enough to know even parents, unless they're Ron's siblings. My guess is that they're unimportant. Ancestry isn't what defines you, but the choices you make... although I do think that Voldemort and Harry both descend from at least one founder of Hogwarts. From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Mar 6 13:29:24 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 13:29:24 -0000 Subject: Sirius and the Witch's Hump In-Reply-To: <003c01c1c4c8$cbdc4bc0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36089 I've been asuming he used Shrieking Shack tunnel all along, and took recidence in the place where Lupin used to be during their school-days. Not many people were likely to come as only RL, PP, SS and AD knew how to calm the Whomping Willow, of them PP is one he wanted to catch, RL could be convinced about PP and he *is* a friend (he might come during full moon, if SB knew he was at Hogwarts), AD and SS are too busy with their jobs to come... It's *the* safest place for Sirius to be, with an easy, safe access to Hogwarts! From tanie_05 at hotmail.com Wed Mar 6 03:03:14 2002 From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 03:03:14 -0000 Subject: Sir Nicholas Porpington (AKA Nearly Headless Nick) Re: The Riddle House Riddles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36090 mariahisabel wrote: > What about nearly headless nick? Dont you think he probably would > have known that he was going to be executed and come up with some > magical way to overcome his difficulty? Apparate out of the dungeon > or wherever he was, put some anti severing charm on himself or > something? to me it just doesnt make sense that he wouldnt have been > able to protect himself in anyway, even if his wand had been > confiscted (other magical folk can preform magic without a wand > regularly or because of high emotions during a stressful > time ). and he must have been a wizard because otherwise why > would he be hanging out in Hogwarts after his death? Somehow I dont > think that ole "hoggy hoggy hogwarts" it the hottest spot for all > ghosts to be. So why didnt he protect himself if he knew about his > impending death? Anyone interested in giving me their ideas or > clueing me in that duh! everyones debated that already? Wait...wait...wait. Who said Nearly Headless Nick was a wizard in the first place? Just because he's a Hogwarts ghost doesn't mean he *has* to be magical. But let's go on the proposal that he was a wizard. Wouldn't he be a bit suspicious if no matter how many times they tried to cut off his head, it wouldn't be severed? Maybe he was unexpectedly executed. Like maybe someone grabbed him from off the street & sent him straight to the executioner's block, where they already had an ax (or sword or whatever they used) waiting for him. Hmmmm......food for thought........ -Kyrstyne From blpurdom at yahoo.com Wed Mar 6 14:28:16 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:28:16 -0000 Subject: Slytherin's Heir (was: Where are the grandparents?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36091 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" wrote: > Ancestry isn't what defines you, but the choices you make... > although I do think that Voldemort and Harry both descend from at > least one founder of Hogwarts. Actually, we know for certain that Voldemort did descend from a founder. In CoS, Tom Riddle confirms that he is the Heir of Slytherin, on his mother's side (p. 231, British edition). --Barb (Yay! I have the British books now!) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Tue Mar 5 23:52:39 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 18:52:39 -0500 Subject: Housism (Amy's sermon) (and a little bit of Snape) Message-ID: <45894E8B.47693050.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36092 Amy wrote: >BTW, I was too shy to mention it besides the automatic notification, but I posted an HP sermon I gave recently to the Files (HPService.doc). Despite being [over]simplified for kids, it does pose a debatable theory, namely that JKR is going to get with the program and stop stereotyping Houses. I'm probably wrong, but I hope not. I use the term "Potterologist" in the intro, too. Pausing only to note that e-Potterologist is an anagram of poltergeist too, here's my take on this question. I think the stereotyping is done by Harry and his friends. Some of these, such as Hagrid, are adult. However, when it counts, the houses are set on an equal footing: Professor McGonagall: Each house has its own distinguished history. Dumbledore to Harry: you have many of the characteristics Salazar Slytherin valued in his hand-picked students. The sorting hat itself stands by its assertion that Harry would have done *well* in Slytherin - the natural meaning of this is that, well, he would have done well. The founders of Hogwarts continued to accept the hat after Slytherin himself left, suggesting a disagreement, not a battle between good and evil, and that they trusted its Slytherin element. I don't believe this is an oversight by JKR as I believe she has mentioned the hat's role is not over. Furthermore, house allegiance, while not forgotten, seems not to play a very great role in adult wizard life. It's important to Draco because it's a family thing - but the Malfoys' approach to categorising sentient life is not commended to us. The Weasleys all were, as far as we know, in Gryffindor, but we don't see Arthur or Molly setting any store by where their children are. Crucially, Snape as a (at some level) penitent Death Eater is entrusted with Slytherin by Dumbledore. This suggests to me that house allegiance is unrelated to dark or light wizardry: we don't get Dumbledore saying to Snape: 'Severus, please prove the genuineness of your conversion by renouncing Slytherin and all its works.' (Nobody AFAIK has yet put forward the theory that Snape is genuinely *not* penitent but genuinely working with Dumbledore against Voldemort. This *is* possible if Snape supports wizarding purebloodedness and other elements of V's ideology, but considers his hamfisted evil-overlord approach to be counterproductive and sees Dumbledore as the best hope for stopping him. I don't believe it myself but I sense that as a theory it is just about worth a silly name - I suggest Yurgles.) I think somebody has already pointed out that when Dumbledore commends Harry for his choices, it doesn't mean choosing Gryffindor over Slytherin - all he's saying is that our choices make us, and that Harry can be confident that his own choice of Gryffindor is normative for himself, whatever the hat thinks might have been. A number of things combine to obscure this: there is intense inter-house rivalry between Gryffindor and Slytherin, which colours Harry's view; Salazar Slytherin disapproved of accepting Muggle-borns; Voldemort was in Slytherin and is Slytherin's heir; a generation of prominent dark wizards initially bonded in Slytherin; Draco, a nasty character, is in Slytherin. The thing that makes me think that JKR is intending that this give an impression, and that that impression is false, is the bit in COS where somebody (Lee? books not to hand as literature well-known to be incompatible with the internet) says something like 'That's two Gryffindors, a Gryffindor ghost, a Hufflepuff and a Ravenclaw. Nobody in Slytherin has been harmed. Can't they see where this is coming from? The *heir* of Slytherin. The *monster* of Slytherin. Why don't they just get rid of all the Slytherins and have done with it!' (Cheers) This passage crystallises nearly all the above circumstantial factors, and so by implication opens the way for their eventual dismissal. 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 jloveys at zoom.co.uk Tue Mar 5 23:22:09 2002 From: jloveys at zoom.co.uk (Jedi Knight Jo) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 23:22:09 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Twins/Percy/Ron/Molly References: Message-ID: <007701c1c49c$93839160$c6b868d5@jody> No: HPFGUIDX 36093 All the stuff in arrows: Catlady >>There is evidence that Lavender is Muggle-born, so getting a letter from her parents to her would take more than one owl. (My theory: Post UK to an address on Charing Cross road next door to the Leaky Cauldron, where it is picked up once a day and taken to the Owl Post Office in Diagon Alley, where the outer envelope is opened, the money in the outer envelope is used to pay for the owl, and the inner envelope, addressed to the real recipient (Lavender Brown, Hogwarts School, Scotland) is given to the owl.)<< Hey I really like this theory - it's a good idea. I've always wondered about Lavender and Co actually - whether they're Muggle born or not and how they get around the owl post thing if they are. >>Being Muggle-born might also explain why she didn't take Binky to school with her: her parents were ignorant enough to think that the part of the Hogwarts letter that says students may bring a cat OR an owl OR a toad meant what it said, and that she wasn't allowed to bring some other kind of pet.<< I can see even the wizarding people thinking this. I mean, there must be a reason why they actually put in the letter that you can bring a cat or a rat or a toad and not just say that you are allowed one pet. I have a feeling (having seen this discussed before) that the letter Harry got was probably the one that wizarding parents get to tell them their children are magical enough to have been accepted - their parents would already know about the existence of Hogwarts so they would know what to do next. I figured Muggle parents got more information and/or a visit from a staff member. >>You'd think, tho', that by third year, she'd have seen enough of Ron's rat, Lee's tarantula, and other non-standard pets to know that no one would give her aggravation about bringing her bunny to schoool.<< Scabbers was always something I wondered about too. It would seem that the Weasley parents are familiar enough by now to know that a rat isn't an approved pet (at least for a first year - Scabbers was originally Percy's so I wondered if maybe older students are allowed different pets), but they let Ron take him anyway. Similarly, I never thought about Lee Jordan having the giant tarantula as a pet (maybe a new friend for Aragog?), I always thought it was to play a nice joke one someone (or a few someones) - his friendship with the Twins means he has to have a sense of humour and his Quidditch commentary shows it even more (how did he get that job anyway?). It never even occurred to me that the tarantula was a pet rather than a prank waiting to happen. :) >>To me, the bigger mystery is how Fred and George NEVER saw Peter Pettigrew hanging arouund with Ron. S'okay, they had no need to look into the Gryffindor Class of 1998 boys' dorm, so they didn't see Ron in bed with a male name they didn't recognise, but how did they never see Harry, Hermione, Ron, and Peter wandering the Castle together?<< Good point. Maybe it's because they never spied on Little Brother? Maybe they just never noticed Ron and Co when they were looking at the map to avoid being caught in trouble by a teacher? If they're intent on, say. what Snape is doing where, it's fairly safe to say that they might miss Ron when he's likely to be mixed in with a load of other students taking a class or eating or going through the corridors. >>"Q: If you could travel to Hogwarts for an hour, what would you do there? JKR: Go straight into a certain room, mentioned in book four which has certain magical properties Harry hasn't discovered yet!" And when this statement was being debated, someone made a plausible argument that she was referring to the chamberpot room. Of course, other people made equally plausible arguments for the prefects' bathroom, the little room next to the Great Hall, and the kitchen.<< How about the room where the wands were 'weighed' as part of the Tournament? Or even the broom cupboard where Harry had his interview with Rita Skeeter? Maybe it does a TARDIS type move on certain days and turns into something huge. ;) --Jo I didn't lose my mind --------- It was mine to give away. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Mar 6 15:07:31 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 15:07:31 -0000 Subject: The real vampire In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36094 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "adatole" wrote: > ***************** > I totally disagree!! > > While I do not believe Snape will ever cuddle up to Harry and give > him a big hug ("You know Harry, it has killed me inside to be so mean > to you all these years"), I do think that Snape understand the > situation and that he is playing role in the great game to keep Harry > alive. He'd do that even if he were a psychopath (to make Harry Life-debt to him, or pay his *own* debt to James via Harry - and to keep Dumbledore's trust). > JK likes things logical. That's not literal, or else magic couldn't > exist in her books. But logical is important. It is illogical to > believe that, once his name was cleared, Hagrid would not be able to > move on with his life (ie: take a teaching position at the school > he's loved when it became available). etc. Logic vs. feelings... Yes, it is good for Hagrid to get promotion after getting his reputation cleaned, but he still lacks education so only AD is willing to give him a decent job... > The lesson (IMHO) that is here is - some people are nasty and foul- > tempered, but still know right from wrong and will do "good" even > when it means they have to work with people they dislike. That goes > both ways - Snapes opinion of others (probably most of the staff), > circumstances (his teaching position), and his boss - and for those > around him (Lupin and Black come to mind at the end of GoF). So far I have not seen Snape to *care* of anyone but himself. I do not know if he has a conscience or not - but even if he isn't a total psychopath(Voldy gets full marks), there *are* some characteristics pointing to that direction: Willingness to kill Lupin and Sirius with no remorse for one, pleasing superiors and being nasty to inferiors, calculating of personal benefits with neglect to emotions, meticulousness, following rules, yes - but no personal sense of ethics, getting angry over things that would calm normal persons (like being *saved* by "enemy"), ambitiousness, cunning - always putting Reason over Feeling, lack of compassion, not letting emotions getting into way, ruthlessness, seeming lack of emotions... > It's a simple reality of life that JK wants to drive home. Yes, there *are* psychopaths, rare but dangerous... and it's extremely difficult to recognise them because they're so good at cheating! Just like > the fact that a Mother's Love can protect her son from the worst > curse ever. I spent a long time trying to find more "technical" > reasons why Harry survived, but a friend drove it home to me. There > is no other reason. A mother's love should be reason enough. Oh yes... I've heard it in several fantasy-books: Love is the *strongest* magic there is. And Lily showed the strongest love possible. Of course it can block any curse... > Simple truths. A Mother's Love can protect. You have to work with > people you don't like sometimes to get the job done. Maybe - but what if you must kill or torture to get the job done? Or watch it? Would you do it? Or would you think that the job isn't worth it? Anyway... Psychopaths are excellent as literature characters. They add interest into the text and make one shiver. From maryblue67 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 6 15:44:12 2002 From: maryblue67 at yahoo.com (Maria) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 07:44:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: my thougths on the vampire thing In-Reply-To: <1015427026.2375.21881.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020306154412.73558.qmail@web11105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36095 Hi!! I haven't followed the entire discussion on Snape being a vampire, but after what i have read i think i can give my opinion: I don't believe Snape is a vampire at all, nor a half vampire, or anything of that sort. He might be a dark person, have a dark past, be ugly and have greasy hair, but well, that doesn't make him a vampire. My argument for this? Very easy: --> If Snape was a vampire, and therefore a dangerous thing to be a proffesor, then he wouldn't have such problems with Lupin as a proffesor either. I know his hatred comes from their past issues, but the argument that he tries to make, namely that a warewolf could be dangerous to students and therefore parents should oppose it, would apply to himself!!! So i don't think he is a vampire at all. OK, that was my thought of the day... :) Maria ===== Maryblue ---------------------------------------------------------- "Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love" - Eistein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From moongirlk at yahoo.com Wed Mar 6 15:53:06 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 15:53:06 -0000 Subject: Twins/Percy/Ron/Molly In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36096 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" wrote: > The twins target on Percy > because > > he hasn't reacted yet (except by telling them off) - they want to > see > > if Percy has emotions. > > I can't buy this. Because Percy does react. He chases them around and > goes into rages throughout the books. He doesn't answer back with a > poker face. Instead, he is always described as turning a deep red. > They definitely know he has emotions. The reason they continue their > tricks against him is that they DO get such a good reaction. > I keep thinking it's actually secret option #3 - they are hoping to jiggle some emotional variety out of him. Eileen is right, he does fly into rages a bit more often than any of the other good guys, bar Snape. I kinda think initially just wanted to lighten him up so he wouldn't take everything so seriously. After awhile I think it just became a habit, and I kind of see what Elkins is saying about it having become more of an antagonistic (I wouldn't go so far as to say malicious, because I can't see any actual harm in any of the pranks) thing, since now it seems like they actually enjoy getting a rise out of him. But I think they'd be thrilled if one day he shot back a clever one-liner or set them up with some great joke instead of just being red-faced and angry all the time. Oh - while I'm at it... why do people see the canary cream thing with Neville as mean? I am very protective of Neville, he's one of my most beloved characters and I hate that the trio leaves him out all the time and when McG was so mean to him about the passwords I wanted to shake her. When I read the bit about the canary cream, I though it was great because while Hermione treats Neville with great kindness, it also seems rather condescending to me. To me the canary cream thing wasn't Fred and George singling out a "weak" person to pick on. I think at best it was them not differentiating between "poor weak Neville" and everyone else who *would* be a target of their jokes, and at worst it was them putting out canary creams and Neville being the one to pick one up, meaning that they had no particular target in mind. What's more, the incident showed Neville in a very good light, as I see it. We see that Neville is a good sport who's comfortable enough with himself despite his insecurities that he can appreciate a good joke, even if the joke is him. So those of you who consider it to be mean, why is that? Did it seem like ridicule to you? kimberly still determined to like the twins From karen at infobreak.net Wed Mar 6 16:08:40 2002 From: karen at infobreak.net (sirius_kase) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 16:08:40 -0000 Subject: Dastardly Deeds Drawer, Molly & Ron In-Reply-To: <008e01c1c49f$0eec5ce0$c6b868d5@jody> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36097 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jedi Knight Jo" wrote: > > >>You know, there's a potential plot device here. Who knows what light could be shed on Snape, Florence, Filch, Tom Riddle, Hagrid and sundry other mysterious pasts if only JKR would send someone up to forage in that file! Surely Dobby, at least, could sneak into Filch's office and start rummaging...<< > Tabouli. > > I'm new here, and I have a question. I keep seeing the name Florence appearing in posts. Who is Florence? Like this message, I've seen her listes among Canon characters, but I dont' remember her name anywhere. > > --Jo > Hi Jo, welcome to the group. We don't know much about Florence. All we know is that she was caught making out behind a greenhouse. We learned this from the Pensieve. We don't even know who she was with. Some here have noticed a few other female characters whose first names we don't know, and are connecting up the names and connecting her up with any available male characters, but it is all speculation. I'm amazed at what has been derived from this very small piece of information. From cindysphynx at home.com Wed Mar 6 17:22:17 2002 From: cindysphynx at home.com (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:22:17 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: It's . . . An Elf! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36098 We are pleased to announce the arrival at Hexquarters of nine bouncing baby elves! They all arrived in good health and good spirits, but they are finding it rather crowded in their crib, resulting in much pushing and shoving. They are: Andrew MacIan (Manxy Elf), Dana Mahoney (Honey Elf), Dicentra (Dicey Elf), Elkins (Elkey Elf), Judy Shapiro (Judey Elf), Pippin (Peppy Elf), Saitaina (Saity Elf), Tabouli (Tooly Elf) and Mary Ann (Dizzy Elf). Our new elves join their older siblings Parker Brown-Nesbit (Nezzy Head Elf), Heidi Tandy & Amber (Alley, the Two-Headed Elf), Sheryll (Rylly Elf), Jim Ferer (Jimmy Elf), Michelle Apostolides (Shelly Elf), Jen Faulkner (Jenny Elf), David Frankis (Davey Elf), Luke (Lukey Elf), Barb Purdom (Babs Elf) and Gwendolyn Grace (Gwenny Elf). As soon as our new elves are strong enough to support their own heads, they will begin their elfly duties: welcoming new members, answering questions about list policy, handling pending messages, and generally ensuring a continuous supply of fattening foods. Cards, flowers, and pajamas with feet can be sent to them directly. They love to receive e-mail, too. The Magical Moderators From aiz24 at hotmail.com Wed Mar 6 00:33:09 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 00:33:09 -0000 Subject: More on the Weasleys (Molly & Ginny) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36099 I wrote: << to see a few more warm moments between her and Ron, but some of the > indictments of her have read like He-Whose-Book-Must-Not-Be-Named's > descriptions of Arthur as a criminal, hypocrite, and terrible father and > husband. Thanks for the voice of moderation.>>>> Penny wrote: > Now, now. I hope my posts don't fall into this category. We can always hope . Penny on whether Ginny is still taken with Harry because of his fame: > I dunno -- > you can counter with the scene in the bookstore in CoS where she seems to > know that Harry didn't ask for the attention & adulation Lockhart gives him. > But, the diary entries later in the book do mention "famous" (of course, I > suppose Riddle might not be trustworthy in that regard). > > I think it's impossible to judge what her crush is based on at this stage. I agree, there really isn't much canon. Her initial fascination must be with his fame, because she doesn't know anything else about him. Maybe Ron's letters home fueled the fire and gave her more details about Harry to seize upon; there's no way to know. I do think that by GF, (a) she still fancies him and (b) it's because of their face-to-face encounters, not because he's Famous Harry Potter. My only basis for this conclusion is comparing their interactions with the many Harry has with people who can't resist at least glancing at his forehead (it is so pointed in GF): Diggory Sr., Bagman, Colin and Dennis, Karkaroff. In contrast, we never see Ginny referring to his fame in any way. I realize I can't build a case on a negative, but if we can say Fred and George treat him as a regular guy, we can say the same about Ginny. They like him; she has a crush on him; there's no reason to think either of these reactions has to do with his fame. The Burrow scenes are all about Harry fitting in to a family. One reason, stated in canon, that he feels at home there is that "everyone there seem[s] to like him"; another, not stated but IMO a clear subtext because of the contrast with others in the wizarding world, is that they don't treat him as if he's set apart. JKR could show with a gesture here or there that there is one Weasley who does; but she doesn't. Ginny acts like a girl with a crush on her brother's best friend, period. I suppose the scene in the bookstore is a point in Ginny's favor, a small one anyway. The diary doesn't weigh much one way or the other either, I would say. I don't imagine for a moment that she really wrote the words "good, great, famous Harry Potter" in her diary; that is Riddle's sneering. We know that she wrote about what he had done that made him famous, but that was in a conversation. It might be that she did write page after voluntary page about how famous he is, but OTOH it might easily have been a scenario like this: Ginny: "I have a crush on this friend of my brother's, but he'll never pay any attention to me." Tom, making nice: "Why not? You're such a sweet girl." Ginny: "Oh, I'm just plain me, and he's really famous." Tom: "Really? Why's he famous?" and the story comes out. Amy Z ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "What is this thing?" said Moody, drawing the Marauder's Map out of his pocket and unfolding it. "Map of Hogwarts," said Harry. . . . "Merlin's beard," Moody whispered, staring at the map, his magical eye going haywire. "This . . . this is some map, Potter!" "Yeah, it's . . . quite useful," Harry said. -HP and the Goblet of Fire ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From lainaf77 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 6 17:48:01 2002 From: lainaf77 at yahoo.com (lainaf77) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:48:01 -0000 Subject: Sirius time line Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36100 I hope this has not been discussed before and I completely missed it. I was wondering about the time line of the night James and Lily were killed. If you can accept the known "truth" that sirius is the secret-keeper (ie, everyone thinks HE is...no one knows they've switched to Peter), then what happens in the hours/days after the murders makes no sense. Iirc, the only way the potters could be found is by betrayal by the secret-keeper (Sirius). It seems to me that the moment they are found dead, every witch/wizard that knew them would be looking for Sirius. However, not only does Hagrid arrive in time to rescue Harry from the rubble, Sirius loans him the motorbike to deliver Harry to safety. Also, weren't Dumbledore and McGonagall there? It just seems to me that no one put 2 and 2 together at the scene based on the info they had. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? "lainaf77" From voicelady at mymailstation.com Wed Mar 6 17:21:04 2002 From: voicelady at mymailstation.com (voicelady) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 13:21:04 EDT Subject: Draco's motivation Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36101 I am currently rereading the first book for the umpteenth-million time (really and truly - umpteenth million!), and have come across an issue that I don't believe has ever come up for discussion in the 2+ years I've been on this list. During the train ride to Hogwarts, as Harry and Ron are getting to know each other, Draco and his henchmen barge into the compartment. Draco has been looking for Harry, because he'd heard rumor that he was on the train. Granted, they'd met at Madam Malkin's shop, but - and this is the sticking point - Draco went purposefully looking for Harry to offer his friendship. "You'll soon find out some wizarding families are much better than others, Potter. You don't want to go making friends with the wrong sort. I can help you there." (Philosopher's Stone UK hardback, p. 81) However, according to Voldemort and Lucius Malfoy, Harry Potter *does* come from the wrong sort! My question is: Why? The Malfoys alligned with Voldemort while he was in power. Voldemort wanted to *kill* Harry. At the very least, Draco's presumed friendship with Harry would enrage his father. So why would Draco want Harry's friendship? What was his motivation? Any theories? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Jeralyn, the Voicelady ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...The finest criminal mind requires the finest accomplices to accompany him. Otherwise, what's the point? I always found that I could never apply my most deranged plans without someone to share and appreciate them. I'm like that. Very generous... The Eyre Affair, Jasper Fforde From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Wed Mar 6 18:25:11 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 18:25:11 -0000 Subject: Sirius and the Witch's Hump In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36102 The question here on this thread is "How was Sirious getting onto the Hogwarts' Grounds, and into the castle?' One theory proposed was that he went via the tunnel through Honeydukes, although this raises the question of how he opened the Witch's Hump and how he got through the Honeydukes store. Another theory was that he used the tunnel from the Shrieking Shack. I see a problem with the Shrieking Shack theory -- the Shrieking Shack is boarded up and sealed, presumably by Dumbledore. Fred and George tried to get in, but couldn't. I don't think Sirius could get into the Shack from Hogsmeade; the only way into the Shack is the tunnel from the Hogwarts' grounds. I think Sirius got onto the Hogwarts' grounds the same way he left Azkaban -- as a dog. As far as the dementors are concerned, he'd be just one of many animals roaming around. We do see him on the grounds as a dog, at least three times that I recall. Now, how he gets into the Castle itself is another question. But this is a problem for the "Shrieking Shack tunnel" theory, too. Perhaps some of the kids have pet dogs and he enters the Castle as a dog, perhaps he sneaks in through some back door, I don't know. Judy From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com Wed Mar 6 18:28:09 2002 From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 18:28:09 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's motivation Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36103 >From: "voicelady" >My question is: Why [does Draco attempt to befriend Harry]? The Malfoys >alligned with Voldemort while he was in power. Voldemort wanted to *kill* >Harry. At the very least, Draco's presumed friendship with Harry would >enrage his father. So why would Draco want Harry's friendship? What was >his motivation? My gut-level response is that Draco has been informed of how Harry was raised (Lucius can find out whatever he wants to know, with his connections) and he realises that Harry could well be swayed over to the dark side, if he had the right tutor. Who better than Draco himself? Why, Harry might end up being one of *his* henchmen, one day. J _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From uncmark at yahoo.com Wed Mar 6 18:47:45 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 18:47:45 -0000 Subject: Where are the grandparents? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36104 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "drjennyfer" wrote: > > I noticed the apparent lack of grandparents throughout. With the > > exception of Neville's Gran, no grandparents ever seem to be > > mentioned. We know that wizards live longer than Muggles, so they > > can't all be dead. Is it merely that they are unimportant to the > > story/plot? "finwitch" wrote: > Ron does mention a grandfather who plays/played chess, > Hermione... we don't even know much of her *parents*, only that > they're muggle-dentists... > Harry-- all dead. (Since Petunia and Dudley are his ONLY relatives). Are all of Harry's family dead? He didn't know about Sirius until book 3 and there's a lot of mystery about James and Lily. I heard a rumpr their history will be important in future books and I have a few ideas. The Harry Potter Lexicon places Dumbledore birth at 1840 (naming a Scholastic JKR interview as the source). Dumbledore while old is not considered ancient or even beyond his prime, so I'm guessing that his age while uncommon is not unique in the wizarding world. There was discussion that Lily might be Dumbledore's grandfather, Given his age, Dumbledore might be Harry's great-grandfather, great- great, or great-great-great-grandfather. Still, as Lily and Harry (and possibly several other descendents) are students he could not call attention to them because of perceived favoritism. How difficult would wizarding families be if 5 or 6 generations were alive? We had 25 family visiting one Xmas with 3! Uncmark From ftah3 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 6 18:54:44 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 18:54:44 -0000 Subject: Draco's motivation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36105 Jeralyn wrote: > During the train ride to Hogwarts, as Harry and Ron are getting to know each other, Draco and his henchmen barge into the compartment. Draco has been looking for Harry, because he'd heard rumor that he was on the train. Granted, they'd met at Madam Malkin's shop, but - and this is the sticking point - Draco went purposefully looking for Harry to offer his friendship. > My question is: Why? The Malfoys alligned with Voldemort while he was in power. Voldemort wanted to *kill* Harry. At the very least, Draco's presumed friendship with Harry would enrage his father. So why would Draco want Harry's friendship? What was his motivation? Well, I think that Draco is his father's son, firstly. And my impression of Malfoy Sr. is that he's a shrewd businessman, an excellent 'politician' in the way he interacts with people. I would bet that if Malfoy Sr. came across an individual who was famous, had the potential to be influential in the social/political sphere they share, and whose moral and social alignment is thus far unknown, Malfoy Sr. would immediately make a play to get said famous person on his side. In the end, being the one who defeated the greatest bad guy ever is impressive, but not necessarily an indicator of future moral choices, so it never hurts to try to claim them as your friend. I think Draco would work in the same mindset. Nevermind the reason for Harry's fame ~ the simple fact is that if Draco can befriend him, he could use Harry's fame to his (Draco's) advantage. A 'trophy' friend, sort of; and if Harry's defeat of Lord Voldemort as a baby is an indication of a high level of inherent power, even better for those who are his friends. Also, I don't think that Draco befriending Harry would enrage Draco's father, for the above reasons ~ especially if Draco did use Harry's fame to his advantage, and if Harry turned out to be as rotten as Draco. On the other hand, if the two became friends, Harry turned out to be a goody-two-shoes, and Draco followed, I think *that* would make Malfoy Sr. very unhappy.... Mahoney From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Wed Mar 6 19:22:45 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 19:22:45 -0000 Subject: Draco's motivation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36106 Jeralyn asked: >> why would Draco want Harry's friendship? Mahoney repliedL > Well, I think that Draco is his father's son, firstly. And my > impression of Malfoy Sr. is that he's a shrewd businessman, an > excellent 'politician' in the way he interacts with people. I would > bet that if Malfoy Sr. came across an individual who was famous, had > the potential to be influential in the social/political sphere they > share, and whose moral and social alignment is thus far unknown, > Malfoy Sr. would immediately make a play to get said famous person > on his side. I'm with Mahoney here. Lucius is an opportunist, and presumably Draco is, too. So, of course they want this famous wizard on their side, especially since it appears he may be more powerful than Voldemort. Maybe they think they can convince him to support the pure-blood cause -- Harry is certainly more of a pure-blood than Voldemort was, and yet V was fanatically anti-mugleborn. And, even though Lucius supported V, and Harry defeated V, I doubt Lucius shed many tears over Voldemort's sad fate -- as several people here have said, he may have even been glad that Voldemort was gone. In Book 1, the Malfoys have no reason to think Voldemort will ever be back, even if we readers know better. So, why shound't they make nice with the guy who defeated him? Judy From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Mar 6 19:52:00 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 19:52:00 -0000 Subject: Sirius time line In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36107 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lainaf77" wrote: > I hope this has not been discussed before and I completely missed it. > I was wondering about the time line of the night James and Lily > were killed. If you can accept the known "truth" that sirius is the > secret-keeper (ie, everyone thinks HE is...no one knows they've > switched to Peter), then what happens in the hours/days after the murders makes no sense. Iirc, the only way the potters could be found is by betrayal by the secret-keeper (Sirius). It seems to me that the moment they are found dead, every witch/wizard that knew them would be looking for Sirius. << It was not widely known that the secret-keeper was Sirius, or even that there was a secret-keeper. Fudge says in PoA that "The worst [Sirius] did isn't widely known." It isn't clear that the Ministry was even hunting for Sirius or knew what he'd supposedly done until the disaster with Pettigrew. >However, not only does Hagrid > arrive in time to rescue Harry from the rubble, Sirius loans him the motorbike to deliver Harry to safety. Also, weren't Dumbledore and McGonagall there? It just seems to me that no one put 2 and 2 together at the scene based on the info they had. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?<< Hagrid didn't know about the Secret Keeper business, so he had no reason to suspect Sirius. And Hagrid didn't tell Dumbledore or McGonagall *when* he got the bike from Sirius. We know that Sirius went into hiding a week before the Potters were killed. So Dumbledore could have assumed that Hagrid was given the bike a week before, perhaps in the same way that Dumbledore got the invisibility cloak and the Gringotts key from James. The timeline is mirky, but it's possible that Sirius had already been captured by the time Hagrid gets to Privet Drive, and there was no reason for Dumbledore to say anything. It's also possible that Sirius hadn't been captured yet, but Dumbledore wasn't suspicious of him, and thought that the Potters had been found out in some other way. The secret keeper spell is immensely complicated, so Dumbledore might have believed he'd made a mistake with it. In that case, he simply knew that Sirius would no longer be in hiding, since he wasn't protecting the secret any more, and could have owled Hagrid to return the bike. There's more about the timeline at http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/ Pippin From jmmears at prodigy.net Wed Mar 6 02:15:58 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 02:15:58 -0000 Subject: More on the Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36108 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Penny Linsenmayer" wrote: > > I agree -- I definitely don't think it's Harry's status in the wizarding > world. I just don't *get* why she pays so much more attention to Harry than > to Ron. Well, overall I'm not sure she actually *does* pay more attention to Harry than to Ron. After all, we only see how she behaves when Harry is around, and (personal experience again) I think mothers usually pay more attention to the needs of their children's guests, than they do to their own kids needs during the visit. For example, if one of my kids has a friend sleeping over, I'm always asking what they prefer on their pizza, what they want to drink, etc. (and none of their friends are even neglected/abused orphans) I don't need to ask my kids these things; I already know the answers. Actually, apart from what he says on the train in SS/PS, I can't remember any instances where Ron indicates he feels neglected or overlooked. I know, I know.. the dress robes in GoF are used as an example, but she used Harry's own money for his so she was able to pick the ones she thought would be nicest for him. She had to use her own limited funds for Rons's. Actually, it seems to me that Ron gets rather special treatment in his family in that he's the only one who ever gets to have friends come to stay with him (not only one, but two!). That has to add to the strain on the Weasley resourses, but Molly never indicates that it's anything but a pleasure for her to have them. If it was all about the "famous Harry Potter" celebrity worship, then how come she is hospitable to muggle-born Hermione as well? They're made welcome simply because they are Ron's friends. Penny wrote: > > "Can be seen as" why? In other words, what is the canon basis for assuming > her crush is *not* Harry-the-Famous-Potter crush variety? She's *met* him; > she interacts with him *some* but not tons. I don't see how we can say that > Harry or Ginny knows too terribly much about each other at this point. I > would bet Ginny is still "Ron's little sister who has this annoying crush on > me" in Harry's mind. And while I don't *know* what might be going on in > Ginny's mind, her initial crush was based on his fame. Her diary entries > that Riddle quotes to Harry in the chamber do mention that she wonders > whether "famous good Harry Potter" will ever like her (I don't have CoS with > me so I'm quoting from memory & could be mistaken). :::shrugs::: I dunno -- > you can counter with the scene in the bookstore in CoS where she seems to > know that Harry didn't ask for the attention & adulation Lockhart gives him. > But, the diary entries later in the book do mention "famous" (of course, I > suppose Riddle might not be trustworthy in that regard). > > I think it's impossible to judge what her crush is based on at this stage. I guess that I'm assuming that after having this kid come to stay at her house and hang around with her brothers for 2 summers, it would be hard to maintain a true celebrity-worship type crush for 3/4 years. Familiarity is hard on that sort of crush. Apart from the singing valentine incident, it's always struck me that Harry doesn't seem to be bothered at all by her interest in him. He doesn't seem to return it, but there's no indication that Ginny's clumsiness in his prescence is the annoyance I would expect it to be to a boy his age. He's certainly irritated by Colin Creevy's hero-worship. Is there canon evidence that I've missed that says Harry finds Ginny's crush annoying? Jo Serenadust From karen at infobreak.net Wed Mar 6 21:44:17 2002 From: karen at infobreak.net (sirius_kase) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 21:44:17 -0000 Subject: Sirius and the Witch's Hump In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36109 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > The question here on this thread is "How was Sirious getting onto the Hogwarts' Grounds, and into the castle?' One theory proposed was that he went via the tunnel through Honeydukes, although this raises the question of how he opened the Witch's Hump and how he got through the Honeydukes store. Another theory was that he used the tunnel from the Shrieking Shack. > Hi, Judy, I prefer the shrieking shack idea. Sneaking through Honeydukes just doesn't seem likely. Harry does it without being caught, but there's that witch's hump to contend with. > I see a problem with the Shrieking Shack theory -- the Shrieking Shack is boarded up and sealed, presumably by Dumbledore. Fred and George tried to get in, but couldn't. I don't think Sirius could get into the Shack from Hogsmeade; the only way into the Shack is the tunnel from the Hogwarts' grounds. > There may be a secret entrance that F&G haven't found. Or, Sirius could apparate into the shack from outside it. > I think Sirius got onto the Hogwarts' grounds the same way he left Azkaban -- as a dog. As far as the dementors are concerned, he'd be just one of many animals roaming around. We do see him on the grounds as a dog, at least three times that I recall. > That theory is just as plausible. > Now, how he gets into the Castle itself is another question. But this is a problem for the "Shrieking Shack tunnel" theory, too. Perhaps some of the kids have pet dogs and he enters the Castle as a dog, perhaps he sneaks in through some back door, I don't know. > He enters the school when the entire faculty and student body are at a feast. He must be able to keep up with the date and he would remember when the feasts are. Or he may have come in earlier in the day and hidden somewhere until everyone was all in bed for the night. The castle doesn't seem to be properly secured anyway. I'm astounded at how easy it is for HRH to sneak out at night without getting themselves locked out. I just read COS again and when Harry and Ron go to visit the spiders, it specifically states that they unlock the oak doors. I'm not sure if it is always stated so. > Judy Karen From karen at infobreak.net Wed Mar 6 22:06:47 2002 From: karen at infobreak.net (sirius_kase) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 22:06:47 -0000 Subject: Florence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36110 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "adatole" wrote: > > Jedi Knight Jo wrote: > > > > > Who is Florence? > > At the risk of starting a fanfic, do we think there is any link to > *MR.* Florence Fortescue, owner of the ice cream shop on Diagon > Alley, the one who feeds Harry full of sundays and advises him on > mediecal witch burnings during those last few weeks of summer in PoA? > > Unless I've missed M. Fortescue's gender. In which case this could > well be another link. Does this help? "now he could sit in the bright sunshine outside Florean Fortescue's Ice Cream Parlor, finishing all his essays with occasional help from Florean Fortescue himself" > > Leon From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Wed Mar 6 03:23:23 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 03:23:23 -0000 Subject: The Time Turner/Marauder's Map/Lupin's Transformation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36111 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" wrote: > 2) This means that if the exact time that the earth stops > obstructing the light of the sun from striking the moon--even a > little-- Um...Um...(waving hand frantically) Wait! A full Moon is NOT when the earth stops obstucting the light of the Sun. When the earth obstructs the Sun from the Moon it is a lunar eclipse. A full Moon is the Moon being opposite the Earth. This is the case only for an instant each month, although people still call it a full Moon for a couple or three days before and after the instant. Now, does a werewolf transform around the full Moon whether he sees it or not, or does he transform when he sees the full Moon? If the later then yes, clouds could delay the transformation. But in that case, A werewolf need only wear a blindfold during full Moon, to prevent the transformation. No Snape potion needed. OTOH, the monthly potion may have messed up Lupin's natural cycle, thus putting him out slightly of sync with the Moon, anyway. Tex, wondering if Lupin did bite Snape in the prank, so Snape is not only a vampire but a werewolf as well. WOW, now, THAT could really complicate a LARP! From lmccabe at sonic.net Wed Mar 6 07:51:57 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (linda_mccabe) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 07:51:57 -0000 Subject: Sirius and the Witch's Hump In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36112 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > This is one of those questions that has probably been discussed > before, but I can't remember the answer, so here it is again. :-) > > In PoA, Sirius gains entry to the castle twice. He does this (I've always thought) by entering Honeydukes and entering and exiting the castle through the witch's hump. > >(snip) > So . . . how is Sirius getting into the castle? > > Cindy Through the front door like everyone else. He was hanging out in his dog form in the Forbidden Forest. PoA p 372. "I journeyed north and slipped into the Hogwarts grounds as a dog. I've been living in the forest ever since, except when I came to watch the Quidditch, of course. You fly as well as your father did, Harry...." Athena From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Wed Mar 6 23:37:24 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 23:37:24 -0000 Subject: BBC SHIP mentions/Weasley Parenting In-Reply-To: <000001c1c437$1006a1c0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36113 "Laura Huntley" found this at the bottom of an article on BBC News. > > "Harry has already been interested in a "quidditch" team-mate in Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire, the fourth book in the series - but will now develop more of an interest in Hermione, one of his best friends. " > If you want to be even more confused about the prospects of future shipping, check out this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/uk/newsid_1726000/1726935.stm "There will be more "boy-girl stuff" in the next books as the characters are now 15. In book four, Harry fancied a member of the Quidditch team, but in the next book JKR promises more romance - though probably not between him and Hermione!" Interesting how this author got the completely opposite end of the stick! I am so curious about where the rumors started.... ******************** Weasley parenting--- First, I must say that I am not a parent; and that I am an only child, only grandchild, and, on my mom's side, an only great- grandchild as well. Until this week, I read the Weasley family interactions as just JKR trying to portray a big, busy family. I thought that This Was How Big Families Worked. I read Molly as a loving woman doing the best she could with all those boys.... Now, I'm not sure. Maybe JKR is setting us up for yet another jealousy battle between Harry & Ron... I hope not... but envy has led to such big problems for other characters (thinking of Pettigrew & especially here) that I doubt we've heard the last of Ron's issues. I personally was expecting some FITD-type jealousy from Ron in OOTP, but maybe family issues will come into play as well.... (What do you bet Fred & George are *awfully* nice to Harry in the next book, maybe more so than they are to Ron?) Now that I think about it, seems like JKR has neatly written Ron & Harry into a tight spot... Harry needs (and deserves) all the love & help he can get... Ron is a bit neglected (whether that's Molly's--or Arthur's!-fault, or just large family dynamics, is up for interpretation...) Throw in some jealousy, hormones, a tendency to fly off the handle, and well, and you're just asking for trouble.... Caroline (who really doesn't dislike Ron, but worries that he is a bit of loose cannon) From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed Mar 6 23:44:42 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 23:44:42 -0000 Subject: Draco's motivation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36114 Jeralyn wrote: >why would Draco want Harry's friendship? What was his motivation? > My answer is similar to Mahoney's, but not the same. It strikes me that it is important to Draco to be seen as top dog. He comes from a well known family, and has already acquired a couple of henchmen. His aim is generally to inflate his own importance and put down others (more on this dynamic in the World Cup scene in the forest another time, perhaps). He sees famous Harry Potter as a rival, and so makes him a friendly offer whose real purpose is to establish himself as master and Harry as disciple: I will be your guide to the wizarding world. He will then display Harry to his friends, as a trophy, as Mahoney says. It is very similar to Lockhart's ambush of Harry in Flourish and Blotts: heading off a threat in the guise of good nature. I believe, with less conviction, that Rita Skeeter's articles and Trelawney's put-downs serve the same purpose for them. David From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Wed Mar 6 23:45:11 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 23:45:11 -0000 Subject: Is Snape a Psychopath? (was: The real vampire) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36115 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" wrote: > So far I have not seen Snape to *care* of anyone but himself. I do > not know if he has a conscience or not - but even if he isn't a > total psychopath(Voldy gets full marks), there *are* some > characteristics pointing to that direction: Willingness to kill > Lupin and Sirius with > no remorse for one, pleasing superiors and being nasty to inferiors, > calculating of personal benefits with neglect to emotions, > meticulousness, following rules, yes - but no personal sense of > ethics, getting angry over things that would calm normal persons > (like being *saved* by "enemy"), ambitiousness, cunning - always > putting Reason over Feeling, lack of compassion, not letting > emotions getting into way, ruthlessness, seeming lack of emotions... Well, my day just isn't complete if I haven't defended Snape. So, I will. However, I should point out that there are two different issues here. One is "Just how mean and/or evil is Snape?" The other question is "Regardless of how mean Snape is, is he a psychopath?" First, a bit of background about psychopaths. Also known as sociopaths, and previously known as "antisocial personalities", a psychopath is someone without a conscience. This is not the same as being schizophrenic (crazy). Also, the "antisocial" label has nothing to do with being unfriendly; psychopaths are usually quite charming when they feel like it. Other hallmarks of a psychopath are lack of fear, a possible lack of other emotions, an intense desire for thrill-seeking, pathological lying and a desire to control others through deception, impulsiveness, lack of an ability to form close relationships, and lack of insight into one's own actions. I'd have to say that Snape really doesn't fit the psychopath profile. (I agree that Voldemort definitely does.) Snape does seem to have a conscience -- a psychopath would have laughed it off when Fake!Moody called attention to Snape's Dark Mark; Snape was genuinely upset. Furthermore, if Snape has no conscience, it's hard to come up with a motivation for leaving the dark Side and spying for Dumbledore. Also, Snape is not usually impulsive and he doesn't show any signs of thrill-seeking. Snape doesn't show signs of pathological lying, and although he likes to lord it over his Gryffindor students, he doesn't do the deceptive, "mind game" types of control that psychopaths like. About lack of emotion -- I subscribe to the theory that Snape is full of emotion, but rarely lets it out. I think that he's very brave, but I don't think he's fearless -- he seemed afraid to do whatever his task was at the end of GoF. So, regardless of whether he's mean or not, I just don't think Snape is a psychopath. And Finwitch, I don't think he's as mean as you portray him, either -- he did not in fact turn Sirius over to the Dementors, he put him on a nice comfy stretcher and took him to the castle. Again, let me point out that being mean and being psychopathic are not necessarily the same thing. Psychologists see psychopathy as a continuum -- someone can be higher than average in psychopathic traits, and still be a good person. (If someone is at the very top of the psychopathic scale, however, they are pretty much by definition a threat to society.) I'm bringing this up because I actually think Sirius Black is quite high on many of the psychopathic traits - particularly fearlessness, impulsiveness, ability to charm, and thrill-seeking. (Possibly, he may be low on self-insight -- he has to think before answering the question "how did you stay sane in Azkaban"?) However, that doesn't mean Black is evil. (I'm not trying to start that debate again!) Black seems able to form long-term relationships, and he shows remorse over the Potters' deaths, which weren't even really his fault, so he obviously doesn't have all the psychopathic traits. Judy From Edblanning at aol.com Wed Mar 6 14:18:43 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:18:43 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius and the Witch's Hump Message-ID: <154.a0185ee.29b77f43@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36116 Well, you know I hadn't worried about this until Cindy brought it up. I think I had always sort of assumed that in his animagus form, Sirius was hanging out in the Forbidden Forest. Now, how the Forest relates to the Hogwarts boundary, I haven't worked out, nor can I tell from the map in the Lexicon. Other than that, as an extremely large dog, I assume that he might in fact be able to leap over the boundary wall, or in fact simply walk through the gates, since the Dementors would not sense him. Or, he could swim across the lake - he swam from Azkaban, after all. Again, I'm unsure exactly how the lake relates to the boundary: I get the impression that on that side of the grounds, it *is* the boundary. Once inside the grounds, entry to the castle shouldn't have been too difficult as the front doors appear always to be unlocked. Even when they did do something about the doors, Prof. Flitwick only taught them to recognise a picture if Sirius. Eloise ( who wishes that they would print a map of the Hogwarts environs in the books, like the maps in the Narnia books and is astounded that the HP media machine hasn't spotted this gap in the market and got JKR to provide one) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Wed Mar 6 14:31:44 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:31:44 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The real vampire/ flightless animagi Message-ID: <13.79832c8.29b78250@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36117 Nyarth: > > There is a precedent in folklore for part vampires. In Eastern > European traditions, they are called dhampirs or dhamphirs, and they > are the result of a rape of a human woman by a male vampire. > Traditionally, dhampir have no overtly vampire characteristics, but > they do have the abilty to "see" invisible vampires. For this > reason, they were often vampire hunters. > They would ride into your village, see your invisible vampires, kill > your invisible vampires, charge you an extortionate amount of money > and ride out. > Admittedly, this smacks more of Gilderoy Lockhart than Snape, but > such things as part-vampires do exist. JKR also admits she twists > I thought that was really interesting. But I've also got to wondering, especially after Tabouli brought up the theatricality of Snape's behaviour (although I'm personally not sure now if I can distinguish between Snape's theatricality and Alan Rickman's theatricality), whether this vampire thing is all part of an act that Snape's putting on. Surely, in the context of holding a position at Hogwarts, if you were a vampire, or part vampire and thus on the margins of the wizarding world, if not an outcast, possibly not even allowed to posses a wand, you'd want to try to hide it - just as Hagrid hasn't gone round shouting about his giant blood, and Lupin kept his lycanthropy hidden. Yet Snape appears almost to revel in projecting this vampirish image. He *dresses* like a vampire, for goodness sake. His movement, either silently gliding or sweeping around, robes billowing, is surely done for effect, or at the very least is within his control. He doesn't court popularity, he enjoys terrorising students, he surely knows his reputation for an obsession with the Dark Arts - what better way to add another little frisson of fear into the teacher-student relationship, than by having them suspect that you might be even worse then they think you are already. If he *isn't* one, then he can play this little game quite safely. I just think it would appeal to his particular sense of humour. I also wonder if it all started when he was at school, if his gothic looks got him teased, with the likes of the Marauders jumping out from behind bushes and shouting 'Vampire!' at him. (That might explain Lupin's deliberate mentioning of the vampire essay in front of him.) Catlady: >Kenilworthy Whisp's introduction to Quidditch Through the Ages >mentions bat animagi (IIRC the adjective was 'rare') as the only >wizards who can fly without a broomstick or other enchanted object. I can't find our copy. Must be in a child's room, for some unaccoutable reason :-) ! But that's interesting. So is Rita Skeeter's animagic form a *flightless* beetle, then? What does she do, transform outside the grounds and then crawl to the castle/ lake, wherever? I'm surprised Crookshanks hasn't eaten her! But when Hermione has her in the jar, she's 'buzzing' against the glass, which implies that she does have wings. It also implies that the speculation a while back about Dumbledore being a bee animagus is wrong. Unless he's a flightless bee, which seems really to be a pretty useless thing to spend years learning to turn into. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jloveys at zoom.co.uk Wed Mar 6 13:08:25 2002 From: jloveys at zoom.co.uk (Jedi Knight Jo) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:08:25 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Florence References: <16600678.637808268@imcingular.com> Message-ID: <004c01c1c510$01184180$0b3e68d5@jody> No: HPFGUIDX 36118 >>Unless I've missed M. Fortescue's gender. In which case this could well be another link. Leon<< Nope, he's a guy, hence Harry getting sundays and information on the witch hunts from Florean Fortescue 'himself' in POA. :) I just checked. --Jo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Wed Mar 6 06:31:20 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 06:31:20 -0000 Subject: Who is Florence? (Was: Dastardly Deeds Drawer) In-Reply-To: <008e01c1c49f$0eec5ce0$c6b868d5@jody> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36119 Jedi Knight Jo asked: > I'm new here, and I have a question. I keep seeing the name > Florence appearing in posts. Who is Florence? Like this message, > I've seen her listes among Canon characters, but I dont' remember > her name anywhere. As far as I know, Florence is only mentioned once. In the Pensieve Chapter of GoF, Dumbledore and Harry see Dumbledore's memory of Bertha Jorkins as a student. Bertha says something like "He put a hex on me, Professor, and I was only teasing him! I only said that I saw him kissing Florence behind the greenhouse last Thursday." That's it. That's all we know of Florence. However, someone here cleverly spotted that Florence was the right age to be involved with several of the main male characters. Since we have no idea which boy was kissing Florence, many participants here have spun elaborate theories about just who he was. So, Florence has gotten to be something of an in-joke here, with people guessing that's she's Mrs. Lestrange, or an old girlfriend of Snape's, or even Neville's mother. It's pure speculation, and some of it isn't meant to be taken seriously. Hope this helps! Judy From bonnie at niche-associates.com Wed Mar 6 15:14:12 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 15:14:12 -0000 Subject: Sirius's attack on Ron; how Sirius got in Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36120 Been perusing PoA with a fine-toothed comb and came up with a question and an observation: Sirius shows up with a knife and slashes Ron's bedcurtains AFTER Scabbers fakes his own death. Sirius later says that Crookshanks told him about the faked death. So why go looking for Scabbers in Ron's bed at that point? Also, after the Shrieking Shack scene, when the Trio are in the infirmary and Dumbledore finally manages to kick everyone out (including a comically irate Snape), Hermione and Harry hit Dumbledore with a barrage of statements, the last one being "...Pettigrew attacked Ron, it wasn't Sirius..." Since I had the aforementioned question in my head, I wondered if Ron had seen Pettigrew that night and mistaken him for Sirius. But then I realized that the "attack" refers to what happened just as Lupin transformed into a werewolf--Pettigrew gets hold of Lupin's dropped wand (***note to those who wonder about lost wands: apparently, they do get dropped when wizards transform***) and blasts Ron and Crookshanks before Harry expelliarmuses him, he transforms into a rat, and disappears into the grass. What's interesting is that Hermione or Harry (can't tell who said it) would fixate on *that* attack, conveniently forgetting that Sirius did in fact attack Ron and break his leg. And Cindy, I don't think Sirius used the witch's hump to get into the castle, either. He probably exited through the willow and snuck in through whatever passage Crookshanks was using to get out. Or he waltzed in the front door as a dog and the doors, having been taught to look for Sirius Black, didn't know the difference. --Dicentra, who is amazed and not a little pleased that details still turn up no matter how many times she reads PoA From rshuson80 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 7 02:17:28 2002 From: rshuson80 at yahoo.com (nyarth_meow) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 02:17:28 -0000 Subject: vampires/grassing on a werewolf (WAS my thoughts on the vampire thing) In-Reply-To: <20020306154412.73558.qmail@web11105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36121 Maria says: > --> If Snape was a vampire, and therefore a dangerous thing to be a > proffesor, then he wouldn't have such problems with Lupin as a > proffesor either. I know his hatred comes from their past issues, but > the argument that he tries to make, namely that a warewolf could be > dangerous to students and therefore parents should oppose it, would > apply to himself!!! So i don't think he is a vampire at all. > I say: Maybe it's a case of "you hate in other people what you fear most in yourself"? Perhaps Snape is uncomfortable with his vampire heritage? Perhaps he was even bullied about it at school, and this led to his obsession with exposing Lupin. Then, when he did find out about Lupin, not only did Dumbledore already know, he forbid Snape to tell anyone about it. I'd be bitter. But this raises another question in my mind. Vampire or no, why didn't Snape tell anyone about Lupin? I know Dumbledore made him promise not to, but at that early age was a promise to Dumbledore really worth that much to him? You'd think he'd be itching to run off and tell everyone that that nasty Gryffindor is a werewolf, and he was right all along... and instead he spends his remaining two years at Hogwarts biting his tongue. Was he threatened with expultion? Was his trusting relationship with Dumbledore actually established much earlier than we imagine? Maybe it's a whole wizard's honour thing, keeping your word. Any thoughts? Nyarth (listening to U2's Zooropa album "A vampire, or a victim, it depends on who's around" ^_^ very appropriate!) From catalyna_99 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 5 21:24:55 2002 From: catalyna_99 at yahoo.com (catalyna_99) Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 21:24:55 -0000 Subject: Molly Weasly's parenting style/ Percy In-Reply-To: <20020304205937.25212.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36122 Vicky DeGroote wrote: > I agreee with the several poster who have stated that we need to give Molly Weaslya break whenit comes to her parenting-esp of Ron! It's probably accepted in their family that whatever is on sale at the market that week is qhat they get for sandwiches! Some weeks it's maybe Percy's favorite, corned beef. Other weeks, Ron's favorite (ham?) is on sale so everyone gets ham that week whether they like it or not As far as her favoring Ron, let us ALWAYS remember that this entire story is done Harry's point of view! < YES! The last sentence says it! As the youngest of four, there were many times I complained that Mom *always* gave my eldest (brother/sister depended on my mood) their favorite and *never* mine. Which, of course, they could produce evidence that I was usually favored before them. (As they put it, simply because I whined louder.) So, while we hear Ron complaining that his mother keeps forgetting he doesn't like corned beef, it doesn't mean he always is stuck with it. Harry just hears him complain more, because he's with him more than with the other Weasleys. BTW I do like Ron. I think he is a good friend for Harry. We just see more of his warts because as I said, Harry is with him more. > of course Molly gives Ron attention and love! She goes overboard with Harry cause she has precious little opportunity! The deal with Ron's robes could be that she's giving him these dress robes she could afford, yes they're maroon (he'll look good in them, very popular color, only one in his size, whatever)assuming that a fourth year Hogwarts student should have enough knowledge and be clever enough to doctor them up himself!> This reminds me of an episode with my brother who was around thirteen or fourteen at the time, and it could relate to Ron. My eldest brother complained that my mother never had time to bake cookies like his friends mothers. Mom looked up from her work and told him he knew where the kitchen was and he knew how to read. If he wanted cookies that bad, he could learn to bake them himself. He became quite good at too! (Both brothers also learned how to sew.) Maybe with her other housework, there is a huge basket of mending, and Ron and the others supposedly do know how to do simple alterations spells. They have a choice: either wait until Mom has time or do it themselves. Ron is fourteen in GOF so he should be somewhat self- sufficient. And as pointed out, he has made some transfiguration spells. I do like the idea of gold piping rather than cutting off the lace too bad Ron didn't think of it. Of course, there is the chance that Molly actually likes lace...(the book did say it was in style around the 1890s...maybe they told her it was coming back among the young wizards.) Cat From christi0469 at hotmail.com Thu Mar 7 01:56:28 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 01:56:28 -0000 Subject: Winged animagi In-Reply-To: <13.79832c8.29b78250@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36123 > Catlady: > >Kenilworthy Whisp's introduction to Quidditch Through the Ages > >mentions bat animagi (IIRC the adjective was 'rare') as the only > >wizards who can fly without a broomstick or other enchanted object. Forgive me if this has already been replied to; I'd gotten behind on posts at one point and had to skim through them to catch up. The quote is "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 takew to the air, but, having a bat's brain, they are sure to forget where they want to go the moment they take flight". So, unless I'm reading this completely wrong, bat Animagi are not the only ones who can fly. Christi From dorbandb at yahoo.com Wed Mar 6 17:44:52 2002 From: dorbandb at yahoo.com (dorbandb) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:44:52 -0000 Subject: Florence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36124 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "adatole" wrote: > > Jedi Knight Jo wrote: > > > > > Who is Florence? > *************** > At the risk of starting a fanfic, do we think there is any link to > *MR.* Florence Fortescue, owner of the ice cream shop on Diagon > Alley, the one who feeds Harry full of sundays and advises him on > mediecal witch burnings during those last few weeks of summer in PoA? > > Unless I've missed M. Fortescue's gender. In which case this could > well be another link. > > Leon the owner of the ice cream shop is named Florean, not Florence. Close, but no chocolate frog. Brian From devin.smither at yale.edu Thu Mar 7 03:36:16 2002 From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 03:36:16 -0000 Subject: Sirius's attack on Ron; how Sirius got in In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36125 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: > > Sirius shows up with a knife and slashes Ron's bedcurtains AFTER > Scabbers fakes his own death. Sirius later says that Crookshanks told > him about the faked death. So why go looking for Scabbers in Ron's bed > at that point? Could it be that Crookshands hadn't told him yet at that point? Maybe he wasn't able to contact him all that often (in fact, I'm pretty sure he wasn't, it would start attracting way too much attention to see an abnormally large dog on the grounds all the time). Maybe after Sirius's "attack" on Ron, Sirius asked Crookshanks why Peter wasn't there or told Crookshanks he hadn't been able to get to Peter, to which Crookshanks responded, "Sorry, mate, didn't get to tell you, little rat faked his own death." Of course, I'm not looking at PoA right now, so it could be there is evidence this couldn't be right. > Also, after the Shrieking Shack scene, when the Trio are in the > infirmary and Dumbledore finally manages to kick everyone out > (including a comically irate Snape), Hermione and Harry hit Dumbledore > with a barrage of statements, the last one being "...Pettigrew > attacked Ron, it wasn't Sirius..." > > Since I had the aforementioned question in my head, I wondered if Ron > had seen Pettigrew that night and mistaken him for Sirius. But then I > realized that the "attack" refers to what happened just as Lupin > transformed into a werewolf--Pettigrew gets hold of Lupin's dropped > wand (***note to those who wonder about lost wands: apparently, they > do get dropped when wizards transform***) Special case there, I think. Werewolves are not Animagi really in the truest sense, and didn't Lupin have his wand out anyway? Perhaps he dropped it only as the transformation was starting to come over him. Even leaving this aside, werewolves maybe don't have the same rules of Animagi as far as wands are concerned (and clothes?--does it mention anywhere for sure about the werewolf and clothes?). I still think Animagi retain their wands (they certainly seem to retain their clothes). Another question, canon is strangely silent on the state of Pettigrew's clothes in PoA...is he naked? At least, I thought I looked very thoroughly last time and saw nothing about clothes on Pettigrew. and blasts Ron and > Crookshanks before Harry expelliarmuses him, he transforms into a rat, > and disappears into the grass. > > What's interesting is that Hermione or Harry (can't tell who said it) > would fixate on *that* attack, conveniently forgetting that Sirius did > in fact attack Ron and break his leg. > Two things: 1) One attack (Peter's) was more recent and 2) They're probably fixated, at the moment, on all the evil Peter has done, maybe even trying to avoid talking about any wrong-doing of Sirius (subconsciously avoiding it or otherwise). Besides, it all happens so fast, I can believe they'd forget or not have time or whatever to go into every detail. But if I'm wrong about any of this, let me know. Like I said, I don't have PoA handy. And can anyone answer the questions I raised? Devin From sandirs at hotmail.com Wed Mar 6 19:44:09 2002 From: sandirs at hotmail.com (Sandi Steinberg) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:44:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Was Percy! now Percy/Molly/Hermione Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36126 >>Susanne wrote that: Or they (parents) may not know how the child feels >>about certain >things that the parents don't see as important. >For >>example Ron's dislike of corned beef and the color maroon. > >I remember getting Marzipan from my grandma for every >birthday and Christmas, even though she was told many times >that my sister liked it, but I detested the stuff. > >The first few years I didn't really care all that much, but >later on I did start wondering if my grandma cared at all >about me, or if she preferred my sister. > Susanne, Sometimes we keep getting the same presents because our parents make us write thank you letters indicating how we "loved" our presents, rather than make waves with well-meaning relatives by being truthful, or providing "hints" as to the presents a child really wants. Of course, relatives keep buying us those things they think we really enjoy!!! Why shouldn't they? They've been lead to belive that their presents were a bit hit with the kiddies. Your marzipan is the equivalent of all the Jean Nate bath products I received every birthday and Chanukah from my aunt and uncle. My aunt liked the stuff; I hated it, but was forbidden to mention that fact. Tact and family feelings also enter into the picture, and wizard parents are just as sensitive/obtuse, I suspect, as their muggle counterparts. Best, Sandi > _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From adatole at yahoo.com Wed Mar 6 12:34:24 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (adatole) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 12:34:24 -0000 Subject: Presents, money, and whether Harry is totally self-centered Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36127 As always, appologies if this repeats a previous thread. Harry has, by all accounts, a boatload of money. And he has often spent it on/with his friends in spur-of-the-moment purchases (Zonko's in PoA, the train in all books, etc). Each Christmas, we are told in detail what Harry receives. He has received gifts from R&H, plus also Hagrid, Mrs (and we assume Mr.) Weasley, and Sirius (although it was unknown in PoA). But we never see what he gets for the others, or even if he has ever done so! Canon states that Ron and Hermione's birthdays fall during the year, and even though R&H have owled (can an animal be a verb?) Harry presents during the summer, again we have no indication that he remembered their birhtdays in any way. Now perhaps this is due to the books being from Harry's perspective. Perhaps what he got them was "off-camera" and not worth writing about. I would hate to think that our hero Harry: good-hearted, loving and kind would be thoughtless enough to forget these things. But I would love to hear other people's opinions on the subject. Leon From saramull at optonline.net Wed Mar 6 18:31:07 2002 From: saramull at optonline.net (sarah28962000) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 18:31:07 -0000 Subject: Sir Nicholas Porpington (AKA Nearly Headless Nick) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36128 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mariahisabel" wrote: > What about nearly headless nick? Dont you think he probably would > have known that he was going to be executed and come up with some > magical way to overcome his difficulty? Who says he was executed by muggles? If modern day Wizards would feed someone to the Dementors without a trial, I'm sure Medieval Wizards wouldn't mind chopping someone's head off (almost). Besides, I'm sure JKR feels that any self-respecting old castle needs a few ghosts, and never mind exactly how they got there. The one I really want to know about is the bloody Baron. Sarah From trog at wincom.net Wed Mar 6 19:14:14 2002 From: trog at wincom.net (talondg) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 19:14:14 -0000 Subject: Evil Fudge, Complex Snape, Loads o' Weasleys, "halfblood," early magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36129 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > Snape's complexity doesn't come only from the current mysteries > about him. > We knew he was complex from book 1, when he went to considerable > trouble to save a student he obviously despises. This tension has > become more and more polarized as with each book Snape hates Harry > more and takes ever-increasing risks on his behalf (I'd have to > stretch things to make CS fit into this pattern, but PA and GF > definitely do). Hey gang, first post. :) At the risk of being rendered completely incorrect by a plot development in a future book, I believe I might be able to shed a little light on ol' Snape. I went to a Military College, and the similarities between my alma mater and Hogwarts are (despite a noticable lack of magic) similar enough in certain aspects to give me flashbacks. I had a Severus Snape, except that he wasn't a professor, he was my Section Commander the first year I was there (senior students are given command of junior ones, similar to "prefects" and "head boy" but with much more authority) He and I butted heads from day one, and continued to do so on an almost daily basis right up until the day he graduated. From my point of view, he went out of his way to make my life a living hell at every possible opportunity. But with 10+ years of hindsight, I've come to understand that what he was trying to do was _help_ me, but just in a manner that completely undid his intentions and made things worse. His anger and frustration came from my (to his view) refusal to learn the lessons he was trying to teach. He meant well, but his delivery and personality completely blocked the real message, and the harder he tried, the worse it got - to his perspective, the harder he tried, the more I fought him. Of course, to my perspective, I was just being bullied more and more blatantly, and so I fought back even harder, and around and around we went. He was an idiot, but a well-intentioned one. ;) I'll give a quick example: when I first arrived at the College, I was sent three days early for some silly reason. The College not being ready for me, I was basically locked in my room for three days and told to study the CADWINS (the big book of rules that goverened College life) I read quickly, and I retain what I read, so after three days I pretty well had that book committed to memory. A couple of weeks later, we finished a drill period early, and had half an hour or so to kill before lunch. We had a test on the CADWINS coming up, so we were ordered to go to our rooms and study. But I already had it memorized, right? Earlier that morning, I had been blasted at inspection for having poorly polished boots, so I took the opportunity to instead head to the boot polishing room and try and bring them up to snuff. I _could_ have just stayed at my desk and caught a little nap (lord knows I needed one) but I thought I was showing initiative. Task A was complete, so I was going on to Task B which needed doing. Well, of course M. X caught me there, and I got blasted for not following orders. And when I made the mistake of trying to explain ("see, look, I'm showing initiative and correcting a problem you highlighted before!") what he HEARD was arguing with authority/refusal to admit responsibility for my faults. This is so totally a typical Snape/Potter interaction. Snape is always catching Potter doing something forbidden by the rules (talking in class, wandering the halls at night, etc etc) and comes down on him, HARD, in an attempt to get him to take the rules more seriously. Snape is not interested in WHY the rules are being broken; all he cares about is Potter's continuous flouting of the rules themselves. To Snape, Potter has no respect for legitimate authority, and is always getting away with it because of his celebrity status. Snape does not care that Potter is a celebrity, and so has taken it upon himself to try and install SOME sense of discipline and respect for authority into Harry - because it seems nobody else will. I can see Snape in the staffroom: "That Potter kid! He shows no respect for authority, he breaks rules all the time, and nothing I do to him can get him to straighten up and fly right - and the other teachers all tolerate his antics! No wonder he's so undisciplined!" The problem is is that the message is arriving all crossed-up; Harry doesn't see legitimate punishment for legitimate transgressions, he sees bullying. And from his point of view (and mine :) he's right. The message is getting lost in the delivery, and it makes Snape look more evil than he really is. At least, that's my take on it. DG From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Mar 6 15:31:09 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 15:31:09 -0000 Subject: Twins/Percy/Ron/Molly In-Reply-To: <007701c1c49c$93839160$c6b868d5@jody> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36130 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jedi Knight Jo" wrote: > Scabbers was always something I wondered about too. It would seem that the Weasley parents are familiar enough by now to know that a rat isn't an approved pet (at least for a first year - Scabbers was originally Percy's so I wondered if maybe older students are allowed different pets), but they let Ron take him anyway. Similarly, I never thought about Lee Jordan having the giant tarantula as a pet (maybe a new friend for Aragog?), I always thought it was to play a nice joke one someone (or a few someones) - his friendship with the Twins means he has to have a sense of humour and his Quidditch commentary shows it even more (how did he get that job anyway?). It never even occurred to me that the tarantula was a pet rather than a prank waiting to happen. :) Bringing a rat is *not* forbidden (unlike broomsticks for first years), but owls, cats and toads are favoured in case there's trouble about pets not fitting together. > >>To me, the bigger mystery is how Fred and George NEVER saw Peter > Pettigrew hanging arouund with Ron. S'okay, they had no need to look > into the Gryffindor Class of 1998 boys' dorm, so they didn't see Ron > in bed with a male name they didn't recognise, but how did they never > see Harry, Hermione, Ron, and Peter wandering the Castle together?<< > > Good point. Maybe it's because they never spied on Little Brother? Maybe they just never noticed Ron and Co when they were looking at the map to avoid being caught in trouble by a teacher? If they're intent on, say. what Snape is doing where, it's fairly safe to say that they might miss Ron when he's likely to be mixed in with a load of other students taking a class or eating or going through the corridors. They weren't looking *that* part of the map - or if they DID see something, who would they tell? Then again, seeing animal-formed animagus *might* require a special password added to the one making the map visible. > >>"Q: If you could travel to Hogwarts for an hour, what would you do > there? > JKR: Go straight into a certain room, mentioned in book four which > has certain magical properties Harry hasn't discovered yet!" > > And when this statement was being debated, someone made a plausible > argument that she was referring to the chamberpot room. Of course, > other people made equally plausible arguments for the prefects' > bathroom, the little room next to the Great Hall, and the kitchen.<< > > How about the room where the wands were 'weighed' as part of the Tournament? Or even the broom cupboard where Harry had his interview with Rita Skeeter? Maybe it does a TARDIS type move on certain days and turns into something huge. ;) I think the cupboard can give instant, safe transport to *any* place in Hogwarts (like the lift in Star Trek), all you have to do is get in, close the door and say where you want to go! Or grant a wiew on certain rooms... From jmmears at prodigy.net Wed Mar 6 16:47:24 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 16:47:24 -0000 Subject: Florence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36131 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "adatole" wrote: > At the risk of starting a fanfic, do we think there is any link to > *MR.* Florence Fortescue, owner of the ice cream shop on Diagon > Alley, the one who feeds Harry full of sundays and advises him on > mediecal witch burnings during those last few weeks of summer in PoA? > > Unless I've missed M. Fortescue's gender. In which case this could > well be another link. Erm.. I think that the character you're referring to is named Florean Fortescue (...now he could sit in the bright sunshine outside Florean Fortescue's Ice Cream parlor, finishing all his essays with occasional help from Florean Fortescue himself..) Pof A, Chap 4. Apparently Mr.F is a man, so I seen no evidence of any connection to Florence. Jo Serenadust, waiting for her post establishing that Ron is *not* neglected/overlooked to show up after more than 12 hours of waiting From karen at infobreak.net Wed Mar 6 16:50:26 2002 From: karen at infobreak.net (sirius_kase) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 16:50:26 -0000 Subject: The Time Turner and the Marauder's Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36132 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Felicia Rickmann" > wrote: > > I don't know if its been discussed, but I wondered > > if a person using a time turner shows up more than > > once on the map. If so why doesn't Lupin comment that > > he say Harry and Hermonie twice by Hagrid's hut? I > > figure a person only shows up once and that would be > > for his or her first time though the events. > > I'd be concerned with the size of the map and what it covers. >From the description Hogwarts has 142 staircases and estimates of 400-1000 students, around 7 floors, plus towers, dungeons, passages that the map shows in detail sharp enough to show individual students on a parchment no bigger than 2 foot by 2 foot( my guess from the description. It can be folded up into a pocket and shoen on one desktop.) > I usually visualize a C size sheet of paper. That's 17 by 22 inches. I can see jamming that into a large pocket or a belt under a robe. That's half the size of a standard blue print which is D sized, convenient to roll up, but it won't fit in a pocket. Size D is the largest that will fit on a desk, I think. With such as small piece of parchment, only 4 times as big as a standard size A letterhead, the details would be extremely hard to make out in any parts of the castle which are crowded with people. These would be Great Hall at meal time or the dormatory area in the evening. Students rarely wonder off alone or in small groups unless they are up to something, that's why the map is most useful to mischief makers. > I imagine a magical view that zooms in on certain areas. It would follow the viewers focus and would highlight a certain area or maybe a certain person. The viewers focus is of particular importance. > sirius kase That would be a useful feature, one the Marauders surely would have thought of and implemented if they knew how. I don't see any clues in the books that indicate that they did. > Harry never mentioned seeing a Peter Pettigrew on the map and I'm sure he viewed Griffindor Tower several times > Too crowded to make out an individual name. > Harry did mention seeing Mrs. Norris the cat. (This spawned a theory that Norris is an anamagus) I think, however that it was because > Harry would have looked out Norris and Filch. they aren't usually in a crowd. > > Lupin knew Pettigrew as a rat so saw Pettigrew's name. I'm guessing > he kept the Whomping Willow Tunnel under survaillance. ALSO as my > view of the Marauder's Map follows the viewer It might show one > Hermione, but the viewer would not look for a second. That's possible, who would think to look for multiple occurances of the same person? And if you read carefully, it was when HRH crossed the lawn that Lupin saw them on the map, not while they were in the castle or the dense forest. It is the very detail of the map that makes it so hard to see Peter and the time travelers. > > Does this make any sense? Yeah, my theory is very close to yours in that I think you are saying that the map shows the user what he is looking for whereas my explanation explains why he can't see everything at Hogwarts (map too crowded with details) > > Uncmark From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Mar 7 09:23:22 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 09:23:22 -0000 Subject: Redeemable Fred -- Neville Timeline -- Ron's Birthday Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36133 A few bits and pieces, here and there... ----- On Fred Debbie, forgiving George for his role in all the pranks, wrote: > So I'd like to revise the challenge to find positive Fred moments > that might rehabilitate the reputation Fred has created in my mind. I'm still amazed that you noticed all those differences between George and Fred! I must say that it never really occurred to me that there was much distinction between the two. My bad, apparently. But if you want a redemptive Fred moment, how about Chapter Ten of _Chamber of Secrets_? The Gryffindor Quidditch team is preparing to go out and play the newly Nimbus'd-up Slyths, and Wood is really laying the pressure on poor Harry -- "Get to that Snitch before Malfoy or die trying" -- all that sort of thing. Enough to give anyone a bleeding ulcer, it is. Fred's the one who says, "So no pressure, Harry," and winks at him. That was pretty nice of him, I thought. ----- On the Neville Timeline In response to my compromise with the Big Bang Cindy, which suggested a late winter 1980 birthday for Neville, Ali wrote: > I love the theory, but I have a slight problem with your dating of > Neville's birthday. . . .The school year at Hogwarts runs from > September to August - the same as the English school year. This > means that all the kids in Harry's year should have their birthdays > between September 1979 and August 1980. . . .So, his birthday would > have had to have been no later than August 31 1980. Hmmm. Maybe I'm a little confused. I get horribly muddled with dates, I'm afraid, especially when trying to wrap my brain around the ways that school years and calendar years intersect. But if we declare Neville's birthday to have been in the late winter of 1980, then doesn't that still place it within the acceptable time-frame? Maybe I wasn't entirely clear on what I meant by "late winter." I meant late in the winter of 1980, not late in the year of 1980. In other words, we'd be talking either late February or early March, 1980, which I think would still make Neville the appropriate age to be in Harry's year, wouldn't it? If we then declared the attack on the Longbottoms to have happened precisely two years later, in February or March of 1982, then this would satisfy Featherboas (which insists on seeing gaily-wrapped parcels trampled underfoot), and it would suit the Big Bang (which insists on things happening quickly), and it would make Faith happy (as Faith has consulted canon and declared her opinion that Neville was "at least two" when the attack on the Longbottoms took place), and it would gratify *me* as well, because oh, I just *hate* that rotten year 1981! So is it settled then? Good! I'm sure that JKR is ever so relieved that we're working out all of these pesky little details for her. ;-) ----- On Ron's Birthday Catlady wrote: > Ron seems like an Taurus to me, but JKR stated that his birthday is > March 1, which is Pisces. If it were March *31*, he would be an > Aries, which I could believe: he has a temper. Oh, dear. Right you are, Catlady! I *did* say that I was easily muddled by dates, didn't I? Somehow I'd misremembered that as *May* 1, which would have made Ron not only a Taurus, but a Beltane baby as well -- which would have been very cool. But alas, no, you're quite right, JKR *did* say March 1st. And she's the one writing the books, right? We hope. So...um...never mind that part, then. Sorry. My mistake. -- Elkins From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Mar 7 10:06:50 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 05:06:50 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Winged animagi Message-ID: <10d.e8454f8.29b895ba@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36134 I (Eloise) quoted Catlady ( not having whisp to hand) > > > >Kenilworthy Whisp's introduction to Quidditch Through the Ages > > >mentions bat animagi (IIRC the adjective was 'rare') as the only > > >wizards who can fly without a broomstick or other enchanted > object. > > Christi replies: > Forgive me if this has already been replied to; I'd gotten behind > on posts at one point and had to skim through them to catch up. The > quote is "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 takew to the air, but, > having a bat's brain, they are sure to forget where they want to go > the moment they take flight". So, unless I'm reading this completely > wrong, bat Animagi are not the only ones who can fly. > Now that's another interesting point. If you have the brain of the creature you transform into, how do *any* animagi function effectively in their animal forms? How, in fact, do they remember how to transform back again? How can Rita Skeeter understand a word that's said to her? Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From uncmark at yahoo.com Thu Mar 7 10:09:09 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 10:09:09 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and Sirius Black Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36135 I was rereading PofA and found in Ch 20 where Lupin changed into a werewolf, Sirius morphed into dog form to protect HRH. According to the book, "Black was bleeding; there were gashes across his muzzle and back," Are we thereforew to assume that Sirius Black is now a werewolf? Or are anamagi in animal form immune to lycanthropy curses? Uncmark From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Mar 7 11:26:37 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 06:26:37 EST Subject: Wizard wear and pockets Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36136 Something (rather trivial) just struck me. We've talked before about how the film costumes are at variance with the description of Harry's robe fitting in PS/SS: in the book, the robes are described as being slipped on *over the head*, whereas in the film, they are open, academic type robes. I've been wondering how exactly JKR envisaged these robes, which slip on over the head, yet from the inside of which you can conveniently retrieve eleven inches of wand (presumably, given the climate and the fact that Hogwarts seems to be a draughty sort of place you would normally keep the front done up). On the other hand there certainly seem to be outer pockets ( in which Harry tried to hide his muddy hands) which does imply a 'dress' type robe. Hermione, though, stuffed the Polyjuice potion ingredients down her front - into inner pockets or just held up by a belt/ waist seam? Perhaps, she thought Snape less likely to notice a sudden breast enhancement than bulging side seams! Perhaps the word actually covers a set of garments, perhaps wizard *robes* have both an inner and an outer element, the sort of thing we see McGonagall wearing in the film? Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Mar 7 11:34:27 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 11:34:27 -0000 Subject: Percy, Ron, Puffskein (WAS: Evil Fudge, Complex Snape...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36137 I wrote: >Percy's good opinion is something that Ron values highly >enough for it to be presented as a major part of his *triumph* at the >end of the novel Amy wrote: > I don't follow this. The fact that it's emphasized by JKR means Ron > values it? No, but the particular *way* in which JKR emphasizes it implies (to my mind, at any rate), that we're supposed to understand Ron to value it. This is admittedly a matter of nuance and therefore open to interpretation. But given the emphasis placed throughout the text on Ron's concerns about not being as good as his older brothers, not being able to live up to their reputation, not having a niche within his family dynamic, and so forth; and given that Percy was established both in his very first appearance and in the Christmas chapter as being prone to value his extra-familial relationships (specifically, with his Prefect friends) over his familial relationships; and given that Percy's depiction in the first book is not nearly as negative or as ineffectual as it will become later on (he is shown, for example, to be a very *good* leader in PS/SS, in stark contrast to his ineptitude in CoS); and given that the scene is constructed in such a way as to emphasize that each of the four protagonists is not only earning accolades, but has also triumphed in some manner highly relevant to their character-specific concerns and conflicts... Um, yeah. Given all of that, I think that we're meant to read Percy's boasting to his Prefect friends of his familial relationship to Ron as a personal and important triumph for Ron himself. I don't think that it works very well if we don't accept that -- at this point in his life, at any rate -- Percy's good opinion really *is* something that Ron truly values. > So Percy's delight about winning his bet with Penny is important to > Harry and that's why it's mentioned at the Ravenclaw match? Nah. Percy's delight at winning his bet with Penny is just Percy being a strutting boor. ;-> But I don't think that the two situations are really comparable. They bear superficial similarities, certainly, but they don't occupy at all the same position within the narrative structures of the two novels. Amy also said: > However, I am never going to forgive Fred for killing Ron's > puffskein, or JKR for thinking that that is funny (FB). I'm praying > there turns out to be another explanation. Killing someone's pet is > a particularly advanced form of abuse. Oh! But surely that must have been an accident! I refuse to believe that the same woman who wrote PoA could fail to comprehend the gravity of killing someone's pet. And since I don't believe for a minute that Fred is *that* evil, I remain convinced that it must have happened due to a terrible, horrible, gruesome error of judgement, and not as a premeditated act of pet murder. And I quite agree with you, Amy. It really *isn't* funny. -- Elkins, who simply cannot *bear* the thought of murdered pets. From ruben at satec.es Thu Mar 7 09:51:39 2002 From: ruben at satec.es (ruben at satec.es) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:51:39 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Presents, money, and whether Harry is totally self-centered In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c1c5bd$ae9dc2f0$a920a4d5@satec.es> No: HPFGUIDX 36138 This is my first post here, hello everyone! [snip] > Each Christmas, we are told in detail what Harry receives. He has > received gifts from R&H, plus also Hagrid, Mrs (and we assume Mr.) > Weasley, and Sirius (although it was unknown in PoA). > > But we never see what he gets for the others, or even if he has ever > done so! [snip] > Now perhaps this is due to the books being from Harry's perspective. > Perhaps what he got them was "off-camera" and not worth writing > about. Yes, I think that's the case. The following quote is from an AOL live chat with JKR. It's about birthdays but I don't think it would be any different for Christmas. Harry may be many things, but he's definitely not selfish. The canon shows a lot of evidence for that. He's also sensitive enough not to display his wealth too openly (helping the Weasleys, for example), when he thinks they could be offended or feel bad about it. And yet he tries to help them 'covertly', by giving the tournament prize to the twins. [quote] Q: Ron and Hermione give Harry gifts... does he ever give them birthday presents? A: Yes, Harry does buy presents back! But I've never focused on their birthdays yet --there hasn't been room! [end quote] From adatole at yahoo.com Thu Mar 7 10:50:22 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (adatole) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 10:50:22 -0000 Subject: The Maurauder's Map in CoF Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36139 With all the conversation regarding the Maurauder's map in PoA, I wonder why Fred and George didn't use it during the CoF events? They could have spotted Ginny going around on her own. They could have spotted a dot on the map (in the pipes) marked "Basilisk". For that matter, in SS/PS, they could easily have found out what was 3rd floor classroom (BIG dot marked "fluffy"). I realize that this would require them to be looking at the map at key times (Almost everyone was struck when the rest of the school was someplace else - at the Halloween Party, at the Quidditch match, etc). But it's just a thought. Leon From trog at wincom.net Wed Mar 6 19:46:19 2002 From: trog at wincom.net (talondg) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 19:46:19 -0000 Subject: SHIPs and Young Love In-Reply-To: <20020306121056.40742.qmail@web13508.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36140 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ms Lizard Gizzard wrote: > I agree that the series is a relaxing break from the > constant in-your-face sex of modern literature, but I > don't think the freedom from descriptive sex will keep > JK from providing some romantic tension between the > teenaged characters. One of the things that has struck me about this series is that the complexity of the books is growing in synch with the maturing of the characters; a 14 year old Harry and friends gets a much more mature and complex story than an 11 year old same. I'm certain this is done on purpose. Isn't the book release schedule a book a year too? And each book represents a year in Harry's life? It's clear from GoF that Harry & Ron are on the cusp of discovering girls, and it seems equally clear that a relationship betwixt Ron and Hermonie is developing (although where that ultimately leads is pure speculation at this point) It's hard to imagine that inter-charcter romance would _not_ be woven into the books eventually. DG From reepicheepuk at yahoo.co.uk Thu Mar 7 10:27:10 2002 From: reepicheepuk at yahoo.co.uk (reepicheepuk) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 10:27:10 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36141 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" wrote: > "Are we [...]to assume that Sirius Black is now a werewolf? [because he got bitten by Lupin werewolf form in PoA] Or > are anamagi in animal form immune to lycanthropy curses?" > If we imagine that something similar will have happened in the Marauders' days (though we are not told), it seems more likely that the curse only affects humans. Interesting question, though. reepicheep From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Thu Mar 7 12:09:23 2002 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 7 Mar 2002 12:09:23 -0000 Subject: New file uploaded to HPforGrownups Message-ID: <1015502963.2458.61852.w21@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36142 Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the HPforGrownups group. File : /Group Members/Weasly-3.JPG Uploaded by : mecki987 Description : It's a...Weasly (Meckis 3year old son Marten, actually) You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Group%20Members/Weasly-3.JPG To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, mecki987 From christi0469 at hotmail.com Thu Mar 7 13:19:41 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 13:19:41 -0000 Subject: Redeemable Fred -- Neville Timeline -- Ron's Birthday In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36143 Elkins wrote: > But if you want a redemptive Fred moment, how about Chapter Ten of > _Chamber of Secrets_? The Gryffindor Quidditch team is preparing > to go out and play the newly Nimbus'd-up Slyths, and Wood is really > laying the pressure on poor Harry -- "Get to that Snitch before Malfoy > or die trying" -- all that sort of thing. Enough to give anyone > a bleeding ulcer, it is. > > Fred's the one who says, "So no pressure, Harry," and winks at him. > > That was pretty nice of him, I thought. A little further into the chapter we have another good Fred moment, as well as an excellent George moment. During the time out in the Quiddith game (ch10,page 170, american hardback ed.)..... Harry tells F&G to abck off, he'll handle the bludger... "Don't be thick," said Fred. "It'll take your head off." (Alicia Spinnet asks for an inquiry, Harry insists on going on with match) "This is all your fault," George said angrilly to Wood, "'Get the Snitch or die trying,' what a stupid thing to tell him-" Apparently Fred and George (and Alicia) care for Harry more than they do Quidditch, and George even stands up to Wood on the matter. A great chapter for positive Weasley twin moments. Christi From christi0469 at hotmail.com Thu Mar 7 13:30:21 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 13:30:21 -0000 Subject: Winged animagi In-Reply-To: <10d.e8454f8.29b895ba@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36144 "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 takew to the air, but, > > having a bat's brain, they are sure to forget where they want to go > > the moment they take flight". So, unless I'm reading this completely > > wrong, bat Animagi are not the only ones who can fly. Eloise wrote, > Now that's another interesting point. If you have the brain of the creature > you transform into, how do *any* animagi function effectively in their animal > forms? How, in fact, do they remember how to transform back again? How can > Rita Skeeter understand a word that's said to her? Hopefully, "the witch or wizard who finds him-or herself transfigured into a bat" is an example of one wizard forcefully transforming another into a bat, which would be different from an Animagical transfiguration. Otherwise it would seem to be a BIG plot- hole. None of the Animagi we've seen show any signs of reduced brain capacity. Christi From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Mar 7 14:00:58 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 14:00:58 -0000 Subject: The Owner of the Cloak (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36145 The Owner of the Cloak (To the tune of The Leader of the Pack) Dedicated to Tabouli Hear the original at: http://www.foxlink.net/~bobnbren/1960s.html#L THE SCENE: The Great Hall. Enter two first-year Gryffindor students. 1ST STUDENT: See that invisible boy over there? 2ND STUDENT: It's Harry Potter. Let's ask him 1ST STUDENT: Harry, is that an Invisibility Cloak you're wearing? HARRY'S VOICE: Mm-hmm 2ND STUDENT: Some kids say they're great, but I just can't see it BOTH: How'd you get it? HARRY (music, whipping off the Cloak to reveal himself) I used to keep my secret pains hid Then I got to do what Claude Rains did STUDENTS We saw that picture! HARRY That's when I became the owner of the Cloak. HARRY (& STUDENTS) It once belonged to Father before (fore, fore) It was sent with a note from Dumbledore (dore, dore) He told me, "Use it well, Check out that silvery material!" At age eleven, (I'm/he's owner of the Cloak.) Whenever I must drop out of view Or violate a Hogsmeade curfew It has no evil powers, I presume I'll never have to throw it in Mount Doom (I'm/He's glad that I am/he is the owner of the Cloak.) (spoken) Bert sort of snarled as we said goodbye His fangs were beginning to show As he flew away on that rainy night But I forgot the Cloak And when we saw Filch, I nearly croaked HARRY & STUDENTS Look out! Look out! Look out! Look out! HARRY (& STUDENTS) I freak out Malfoy in my cool cape. If I can only keep it from Snape When at my scar they stop and stare Or if I'm hiding and get stuck on stairs That's when I become (the needer of the Cloak) (HARRY puts the Cloak on again, and vanishes) STUDENTS The owner of the Cloak - now he's gone The owner of the Cloak - now he's gone The owner of the Cloak - now he's gone - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Mar 7 14:22:59 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:22:59 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Winged animagi Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36146 In a message dated 07/03/02 13:37:06 GMT Standard Time, christi0469 at hotmail.com writes: > > "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 takew to the air, > but, > > > having a bat's brain, they are sure to forget where they want to > go > > > the moment they take flight". So, unless I'm reading this > completely > > > wrong, bat Animagi are not the only ones who can fly. > > > Eloise wrote, > > > Now that's another interesting point. If you have the brain of the > creature > > you transform into, how do *any* animagi function effectively in > their animal > > forms? How, in fact, do they remember how to transform back again? > How can > > Rita Skeeter understand a word that's said to her? > Christi replies: > > Hopefully, "the witch or wizard who finds him-or herself > transfigured into a bat" is an example of one wizard forcefully > transforming another into a bat, which would be different from an > Animagical transfiguration. Otherwise it would seem to be a BIG plot- > hole. None of the Animagi we've seen show any signs of reduced brain > capacity. > Quite. The odd thing that it comes in the context of speaking about *animagi*. And it does seem to imply that the bat transfiguree wanted to fly somewhere in the first place. A forceful transfiguration would be one such as Malfoy, the amazing bouncing ferret, whom, nevertheless, Crouch/Moody speaks to (Never...do...that...again) with each bounce, therefore presumably assuming he could understand. Otherwise the lesson he is 'teaching' applies only to the witnesses, and Draco could get the full point only if one of his cronies was brave enough to tell him exactly what had happened to him. I think I'll put it down to a slight lapse on the author's part - whichever author you want to credit with Quidditch through the Ages! Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Mar 7 14:39:34 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 14:39:34 -0000 Subject: The real vampire/ flightless animagi In-Reply-To: <13.79832c8.29b78250@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36147 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > Surely, in the context of holding a position at Hogwarts, if you were a vampire, or part vampire and thus on the margins of the wizarding world, if not an outcast, possibly not even allowed to posses a wand, you'd want to try to hide it - just as Hagrid hasn't gone round shouting about his giant blood, and Lupin kept his lycanthropy hidden. < Except that this is the Potterverse, where people never notice nuffink, do they? And just as the Knight Bus goes careening unremarked through quiet Muggle neighborhoods and likewise in the heart of London, just as Stan, who sees the scar, can't quite manage to recognize famous Harry Potter, so Severus Snape swoops batlike about the castle and nobody thinks "vampire". Look at Vernon Dursley. He *knows* there are wizards, but won't admit to himself what they are even when he sees them on the streets in full wizarding attire. Wouldn't it be a typical Rowling joke to have the wizards react to vampires the same way? Pippin From igenite_olwyn at yahoo.com Thu Mar 7 13:36:17 2002 From: igenite_olwyn at yahoo.com (igenite_olwyn at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:36:17 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Werewolves and Sirius Black References: Message-ID: <00fc01c1c5dd$10ce89e0$0100a8c0@darkangel.org> No: HPFGUIDX 36148 Uncmark wrote... >>Are we thereforew to assume that Sirius Black is now a werewolf? Or are anamagi in animal form immune to lycanthropy curses?<< I always took it that he had been scratched not bitten, therefore the lycanthropy wouldn't be passed on. I dont think that simply being an animagi would protect them from things like that, as they are still inherently human even under the fur or feathers etc. Olly [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Thu Mar 7 15:01:43 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:01:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Magic Programming / Spell Inventing / Potter Anagram / Cho Message-ID: <20020307150143.74361.qmail@web21109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36149 (Computer programmers, hear!) I've been thinking: how do wizards make up such magical stuff like marauder maps (ok, doesn't sound right), canary creams, self-stirring cauldrons, erised mirrors (er...), Weasley clocks, and diggory badges? We know the existence of spells - I imagine, to make a magical object, you need to sort of 'program' a series of spells and actions on some object. For example, to make a something that lights up when there is trouble, we can have (pseudocode): if(trouble) lumos(object) Of course it's not in code. Maybe they dictate it or something. Thoughts on this? Also, Hagrid told something about wizards' not having invented a spell [our] Hermione can do. How do they invent spells, and how do they make it universal? The actual question is: Are spells invented? Don't all of them exist all along, with the latin language already present? (I don't know about 'stupefy' but you get the point) I wouldn't call them 'invented' but 'first used' by someone. Well...? Hmm... I tried HARRY JAMES POTTER (Harry's full name) on my anagram generator and got an interesting result: MAJOR HYPE STARTER And for those who wonder why JKR used the name Cho: (jokingly) Cho = Jo Maybe it's just me. -Ron Yu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Mar 7 15:24:15 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 15:24:15 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36150 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" wrote: > I was rereading PofA and found in Ch 20 where Lupin changed into a > werewolf, Sirius morphed into dog form to protect HRH. According to > the book, "Black was bleeding; there were gashes across his muzzle > and back," > > Are we thereforew to assume that Sirius Black is now a werewolf? Or > are anamagi in animal form immune to lycanthropy curses? > > Uncmark Those marks are most probably claws: a wolf only bites when he gets the opportunity to kill (that is, neck), or when the attack will cause almost victory (like searing leg-tendons). When fighting a similar or bigger animal (as is the case of Sirius' dog), any self-respecting wolf which wants to keep living will NOT expose his neck (and specificly his jugular) to his opponent just for the sake of nibbling his back a bit. Hope that helps Grey Wolf From maryblue67 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 7 15:29:03 2002 From: maryblue67 at yahoo.com (Maria) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:29:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Werewolves and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: <1015507227.25345.39878.m9@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020307152903.35556.qmail@web11104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36151 Uncmark wrote: >I was rereading PofA and found in Ch 20 where Lupin changed into a >werewolf, Sirius morphed into dog form to protect HRH. According to >the book, "Black was bleeding; there were gashes across his muzzle >and back," >Are we thereforew to assume that Sirius Black is now a werewolf? Or >are anamagi in animal form immune to lycanthropy curses? It does say in PoA, that they transformed into animagi so that they would be safe in his company, and he wouldn't have to be alone anymore when transforming. I can't cite the exact text and location, but i believe it is when Lupin and Sirius are telling our trio the story of how/why they became animagi when they're in the Shack. Hope that helps Maria ===== Maryblue ---------------------------------------------------------- "Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love" - Eistein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Mar 7 15:17:05 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 15:17:05 -0000 Subject: Presents, money, and whether Harry is totally self-centered In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36152 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "adatole" wrote: > As always, appologies if this repeats a previous thread. > > Harry has, by all accounts, a boatload of money. And he has often > spent it on/with his friends in spur-of-the-moment purchases (Zonko's > in PoA, the train in all books, etc). > > Each Christmas, we are told in detail what Harry receives. He has > received gifts from R&H, plus also Hagrid, Mrs (and we assume Mr.) > Weasley, and Sirius (although it was unknown in PoA). > > But we never see what he gets for the others, or even if he has ever > done so! > > Leon You're wrong: Harry DOES give presents to his friends - and freaquently, too! In the first book, he's got so much money he doesn't know what to do with it. He buys quite a lot of candy, and half of which is taken by Ron, who's sandwitch is compleatly forgotten. On the firsts books we aren't told what he buys, but in GoF, when Dobby comes to give HP a pair of socks, we are told that Harry has sent Ron a Chudley Cannons hat for Christmas, and he buys the omniculars for the three of them (as a christmas gift! that's two for the same year) at the very begining. We aren't told what he buys every year, but it seems obvious that he enjoys spending money in gifts for his friends. Hope that helps Grey Wolf From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Thu Mar 7 15:23:44 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:23:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Polyjuice Problem - Wizard Wear Again Message-ID: <20020307152344.12383.qmail@web21102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36153 When the trio planned to polyjuice into Crabbe, Goyle, and Bulstrode, Hermione got Harry and Ron Crabbe and Goyle's robes because she thinks they will not fit in their own robes. Well, wasn't she even concerned (and didn't Harry and Ron think of this) that it's not the robes they will not fit into but their inside [muggle] wear? So I imagine now... Harry and Ron as Crabbe and Goyle in very tight muggle wear (who knows if the muggle wear is still there and not torn off by their oversize?) wearing robes. How will the movie handle this? -Ron Yu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Mar 7 15:16:08 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:16:08 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Werewolves and Sirius Black/ the Map again Message-ID: <18f.46a6a5a.29b8de38@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36154 Uncmark: > "Are we [...]to assume that Sirius Black is now a werewolf? [because he got bitten by Lupin werewolf form in PoA] Or > are anamagi in animal form immune to lycanthropy curses?" Reepicheep: > If we imagine that something similar will have happened in the > Marauders' days (though we are not told), it seems more likely that > the curse only affects humans. Interesting question, though. > But are we told he is *bitten* ? 'Gashes across his muzzle and back' sound more like *scratches* inflicted by claws, to me. It is only a werewolf's *bite* that causes its victim to fall prey to lycanthropy. Also, on the subject of the full moon and some confusion with eclipses (sorry, I can't locate the original post), I'd just like to point out that the principle behind the idea was sound. The moon may *become* full *after* it has risen. So even if the moon was out as they emerged from the tunnel, it may not technically have been full until shortly after. ****************************************************************************** **** Leon: >With all the conversation regarding the Maurauder's map in PoA, I >wonder why Fred and George didn't use it during the CoF events? >They could have spotted Ginny going around on her own. Very true >They could have spotted a dot on the map (in the pipes) >marked "Basilisk". >For that matter, in SS/PS, they could easily have found out what was >3rd floor classroom (BIG dot marked "fluffy"). But as we've discussed, with the exception of Mrs Norris, whom we all know now, courtesy of Tabouli, is really Filch's transfigured/ cursed lover (hard as the concept of Filch having a lover may be to swallow!), the Map does not show animals. (The biggest potential plot hole, is that in PS/SS, it should have shown Lord Voldemort everywhere that Quirrel went.) As I've said before, I think the twins had basically used the Map as a tool for finding their way around/ getting out of Hogwarts. I don't think they really appreciated its potential, otherwise they wouldn't have been so happy to give it away. They gave it to Harry to help him get to Hogsmeade, saying 'We don't need it any more....we know it off by heart', which suggests that to them it was just a map, not a method of spying on what people were up to. Rather creditable for them, I think! Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Thu Mar 7 15:57:43 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 15:57:43 -0000 Subject: Magic Programming / Spell Inventing / Potter Anagram / Cho In-Reply-To: <20020307150143.74361.qmail@web21109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36155 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > (Computer programmers, hear!) > > I've been thinking: how do wizards make up such > magical stuff like marauder maps (ok, doesn't sound > right), canary creams, self-stirring cauldrons, erised > mirrors (er...), Weasley clocks, and diggory badges? JKR tells us the kids study the "theory" of magic. Herm tells Harry to study the theory of accio. Unfortunately, JKR doesn't tell us any of the theory. But then, if she did, HP would be science fiction and not fantasy. Imagine wizards discussing science fiction and wondering how Muggles make up stuff like GUI's, printer drivers, mice that snap icons, rocket engines, etc.. They would conclude the whole this is fansatsy! > We know the existence of spells - I imagine, to make a > magical object, you need to sort of 'program' a series > of spells and actions on some object. > Maybe they dictate it or > something. Thoughts on this? > They maay using a system like forth or LISP, to build a big spell with many little ones. Call them spellunks. Then, perhaps the veritas serum shares many spellunks with Imperio. Somebody recently posted something to the effect that ABRA CADABRA was a medical spell, so the AK curse might share spellunks with it. Rather like the judicial system looking to doctors to come up with formulations for lethal injections. Spells don't seem to be sequential, most of the time, so the programming would happen in the same cycle. But you wouldn't be doing sequential code, either. Maybe something like a spread sheet. > Also, Hagrid told something about wizards' not having > invented a spell [our] Hermione can do. How do they > invent spells, and how do they make it universal? The > actual question is: Are spells invented? Don't all of > them exist all along, with the latin language already > present? (I don't know about 'stupefy' but you get the > point) I wouldn't call them 'invented' but 'first > used' by someone. Well...? Egyptian wizards used spells before there was Latin. The spells must certainly involve some mental process which is aided by the incantation and the wand-waving. I suspect the Hogwarts kids spend a lot of time meditating, i.e. practicing the mental process required. But we are only told to "think happy thoughts," or to imagine something funny, to give us a hint. I hate to think what kind of thoughts is required for AK. As for the invention of spells, I guess magical history parallels the history of technology -- part accident, part brilliant insight. So, Neville may someday invent a wonderful new potion. The Riddle Diary and the Marauders map are interesting in that they could both pass for AI in a science fiction story. Of course the Marauders would have needed to hack the castle's security and surveillance systems. Tex, the Ravenclaw Maverick From huntleyl at mssm.org Thu Mar 7 15:18:39 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:18:39 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIPs and Young Love References: Message-ID: <003901c1c5eb$5c12b1c0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 36156 DG wrote: >One of the things that has struck me about this series is that the >complexity of the books is growing in synch with the maturing of the >characters; a 14 year old Harry and friends gets a much more mature >and complex story than an 11 year old same. >It's clear from GoF that Harry & Ron are on the cusp of discovering >girls, and it seems equally clear that a relationship betwixt Ron and >Hermione is developing (although where that ultimately leads is pure >speculation at this point) Now, I would just like to point something out here. I've heard allot of noise about how Jo is so great at developing the characters/books according to character's age. However, IRL, can you imagine *any* 14 year old boy just being *on the cusp* of noticing girls? In this aspect, Harry/Ron behave more like 11/12 year olds than 14 year olds. Harry and Ron behave/think *incredibly* innocently for their age. Most 14 year olds are obsessed with sexual things, moreover, they are well into puberty. Of course, if the HP books were *completely* realistic, we would have Harry (there's just no delicate way of putting this) masturbating and *many* more "Uranus" type jokes from Ron...which would be NO FUN. Realistic, yes. Representative of healthy 14 year old boys, sure. But, still, who wants to read about that? I like it the way it is, and I want it to *stay* innocent like that. Who needs sexuality when you've got three-headed dogs and giant snakes? laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From margdean at erols.com Thu Mar 7 16:42:02 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 11:42:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Werewolves and Sirius Black References: Message-ID: <3C87985A.53D39FB4@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36157 uncmark wrote: > > I was rereading PofA and found in Ch 20 where Lupin changed into a > werewolf, Sirius morphed into dog form to protect HRH. According to > the book, "Black was bleeding; there were gashes across his muzzle > and back," > > Are we thereforew to assume that Sirius Black is now a werewolf? Or > are anamagi in animal form immune to lycanthropy curses? Apparently they are. Lupin remarks that "Werewolves are only dangerous to people," and that seems to have been the rationale behind the Marauders' study of the Animagus spell to begin with. In animal form they could be with Remus safely even when he was transformed. --Margaret Dean From moongirlk at yahoo.com Thu Mar 7 16:57:29 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 16:57:29 -0000 Subject: Winged animagi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36158 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "christi0469" wrote: > Eloise wrote, > > > Now that's another interesting point. If you have the brain of the > creature > > you transform into, how do *any* animagi function effectively in > their animal > > forms? How, in fact, do they remember how to transform back again? > How can > > Rita Skeeter understand a word that's said to her? > > > Hopefully, "the witch or wizard who finds him-or herself > transfigured into a bat" is an example of one wizard forcefully > transforming another into a bat, which would be different from an > Animagical transfiguration. Otherwise it would seem to be a BIG plot- > hole. None of the Animagi we've seen show any signs of reduced brain > capacity. I also think probably Whisp is not an animagus nor a scholar on the subject. When the kids study animagism in class there's no mention one way or another, so maybe there is little or no scholarship on the thought processes of animagi in animal form, and thus non-animagi don't really know what it's like? After all, animagism is supposed to be rare, even if it's not so rare amongst those in our acquaintance so far. Maybe Whisp just stumbled into an area beyond his knowlege and made an assumption that went unchallenged due to a lack of general information on the subject. And there *is* evidence that at least emotions are simplified while in animal form - in Sirius' explanation of his survival in Azkaban. kimberly hoping to avoid another plot-hole. From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Thu Mar 7 16:40:44 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 16:40:44 -0000 Subject: Puffskein In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36159 Amy and Elkins were discussing the "margin note" in Fantastic Beasts, where it says Fred used Ron's pet puffskein for bludger practice. Amy said: > > However, I am never going to forgive Fred for killing Ron's > > puffskein, or JKR for thinking that that is funny (FB). Elkins agreed: > I refuse to believe that the same woman who wrote PoA could fail to > comprehend the gravity of killing someone's pet. And since I don't > believe for a minute that Fred is *that* evil, I remain convinced > that it must have happened due to a terrible, horrible, gruesome > error of judgement, and not as a premeditated act of pet murder. I was shocked when I read that in Fantastic Beasts, too. But maybe Fred didn't kill it? Maybe the puffskein just got royally ticked off and ran away, and that's why Ron didn't have it anymore? Judy, who's starting to wonder if Fred is George's "evil twin". From trog at wincom.net Thu Mar 7 17:01:15 2002 From: trog at wincom.net (talondg) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 17:01:15 -0000 Subject: SHIPs and Young Love In-Reply-To: <003901c1c5eb$5c12b1c0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36160 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" wrote: > DG wrote: > > One of the things that has struck me about this series is that the > > complexity of the books is growing in synch with the maturing of > > the characters > Now, I would just like to point something out here. I've heard > allot of noise about how Jo is so great at developing the > characters/books according to character's age. However, IRL, can > you imagine *any* 14 year old boy just being *on the cusp* of > noticing girls Well, yeah. Having been there myself a while ago, I can attest that not everybody develops at the same rate. And furthermore, there's a pretty big step between the *noticing*, and the *knowing what to do about it* (beyond the purely academic sense of knowing how all the various bits fit together) We know that Harry is smitten with Cho, and we see evidence that Ron's feelings for Hermonie run deeper than he seems to realize (or allows himself to realize - the moment you realize that the girl next door you used to try and feed mud pies to is actually quite the hottie can be pretty traumatic :) So we know the boys are starting to notice the girls. But their behaviour prior to and at the Xmas ball in GoF (and the girls' exasperation with them - a common theme from my adolesence as I recall :) shows that they don't yet understand what role they are to play in all this romance stuff. That totally rings true to me. Been there, done that. :) The other aspect too is that they live in a much more regimented environment than the typical American public school. I was in military college from the ages of 17 through 22. We were co-ed, to the point where the room next to yours might have girls in it (although they were outnumbered 10 to 1 or so) Yes, there was sex going on, but nowhere near as much as you might think based on the numbers, because there was no TIME for it - the schedules were just too tightly controlled, and there was almost no privacy. I would agree though, that as time passes, the sexual aspects are going to become harder and harder to ignore. It will be interesting to see if she sidesteps the issue (which would be a legitimate stylistic choice, given the audience) or if she chooses to meet the issue head-on. My bet is on romance, no sex - but I could be wrong. DG From bonnie at niche-associates.com Thu Mar 7 15:33:10 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 15:33:10 -0000 Subject: When did Snape's spying career begin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36161 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nyarth_meow" wrote: > > But this raises another question in my mind. Vampire or no, why > didn't Snape tell anyone about Lupin? I know Dumbledore made him > promise not to, but at that early age was a promise to Dumbledore > really worth that much to him? You'd think he'd be itching to run > off and tell everyone that that nasty Gryffindor is a werewolf, and > he was right all along... and instead he spends his remaining two > years at Hogwarts biting his tongue. Was he threatened with > expultion? Was his trusting relationship with Dumbledore actually > established much earlier than we imagine? Whoa! Hold the phones. Somebody check GoF again. (I've only got PoA with me today.) Does it *say* that Snape was a DE who turned or does it only say that he was a spy? What if he never was a DE? That would be interesting. --Dicentra, noting that it would mean the demise of George and his sister Diana and many other interesting theories From adhara_black at yahoo.co.uk Thu Mar 7 17:33:41 2002 From: adhara_black at yahoo.co.uk (adhara_black) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 17:33:41 -0000 Subject: Wizard wear and pockets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36162 Eloise wrote: Something (rather trivial) just struck me. We've talked before about how the film costumes are at variance with the description of Harry's robe fitting in PS/SS: in the book, the robes are described as being slipped on *over the head*, whereas in the film, they are open, academic type robes. I've been wondering how exactly JKR envisaged these robes, which slip on over the head, yet from the inside of which you can conveniently retrieve eleven inches of wand (presumably, given the climate and the fact that Hogwarts seems to be a draughty sort of place you would normally keep the front done up). On the other hand there certainly seem to be outer pockets ( in which Harry tried to hide his muddy hands) which does imply a 'dress' type robe. Hermione, though, stuffed the Polyjuice potion ingredients down her front - into inner pockets or just held up by a belt/ waist seam? Perhaps, she thought Snape less likely to notice a sudden breast enhancement than bulging side seams! Perhaps the word actually covers a set of garments, perhaps wizard *robes* have both an inner and an outer element, the sort of thing we see McGonagall wearing in the film? Eloise Adhara writes : I too have been wondering about how the robes 'work'. Inner garments, outer garments, pockets, etc. for exactly the same reasons. In the film, Harry and the other students seem to wear Muggle clothes under their outer 'uniform' robes. A shirt and school tie for classes for example. But they wear casual gear at other times. For example, Harry's wearing jeans and a torn red sweater when he confronts Quirrell/Voldemort. No sign of robes at all! Since JKR is said to have worked closely with Columbus and was very happy with the film, I can't imagine she wouldn't have intervened if the clothing wasn't the way she envisaged it in the books. Apart from all that, I always assumed that just like in the Muggle world, there must be something like witch- and wizard-fashion and they don't all wear the same. Certainly in PS/SS, we see descriptions of them wearing different coloured robes in the street on the day they celebrate Voldemort's (assumed) defeat. And Fugde's style is certainly different. The use of Muggle clothing is not entirely clear to me. In GoF, dressing as a Muggle to go to the Quidditch World Cup seems to be a big deal, and from the descriptions it would seem the wizards and witches are NOT used to it. On the other hand, they ALL dress as Muggles to make their way to King's Cross Station every year, so they don't attract attention. Oh well, as Eloise wrote, perhaps it's trivial. - Adhara From rose at swicegood.com Thu Mar 7 16:09:12 2002 From: rose at swicegood.com (roseswicegood) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 16:09:12 -0000 Subject: JKR's Plot hole Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36163 I hope this has not been covered before--does anyone know what the plot hole was that JKR had to fix in GoF? On another topic, my teen (not a real HP fan) said--why couldn't Moody/Crouch turn anything into a port key like from his office? *My* response :-) as I always have one, was that a port key would not work inside Hogwarts and thus the Tournament had to be held on the quidditch field. Please no angry words if this has been covered, I'm new here. Rose Swicegood *to JKR: please bring back Remus Lupin... From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Thu Mar 7 18:15:15 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:15:15 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's Plot hole Message-ID: <42.235c7816.29b90833@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36164 In a message dated 3/7/2002 1:09:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, rose at swicegood.com writes: > I hope this has not been covered before--does anyone know what the > plot hole was that JKR had to fix in GoF? > On another topic, my teen (not a real HP fan) said--why couldn't > Moody/Crouch turn anything into a port key like from his office? > *My* response :-) as I always have one, was that a port key would not > work inside Hogwarts and thus the Tournament had to be held on the > quidditch field. Please no angry words if this has been covered, I'm > new here. > Rose Swicegood >From what I understand of it, the Plot Hole was at the start when Voldie and Wormy were talking about there having to be "one more death" before they got to Harry. That death was supposed to be Moody, but then JKR figured out that she would need Moody alive so Croody could make the PJP. I think that's right. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me. I'm sure it when *something* like that, though. ~Cassie-happily listening to Ayumi Hamasaki and reading HP~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Thu Mar 7 18:20:12 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:20:12 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] When did Snape's spying career begin? Message-ID: <11a.d15e33a.29b9095c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36165 Dicentra > Whoa! Hold the phones. Somebody check GoF again. (I've only got PoA > with me today.) Does it *say* that Snape was a DE who turned or does > it only say that he was a spy? What if he never was a DE? That would > be interesting. Well, I think we can be sure that he was a DE. Why? Because he has the Dark Mark burned on his arm. And he couldn't have done that himself because that thing wouldn't work when Voldie touched his or another DE's mark. And from what understand of it, though I don't have my GoF with me either, Snape was a DE who defected and turned spy. ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From adatole at yahoo.com Thu Mar 7 15:50:13 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (adatole) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 15:50:13 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: <20020307152903.35556.qmail@web11104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36166 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Maria wrote: > It does say in PoA, that they transformed into animagi so that they > would be safe in his company, and he wouldn't have to be alone > anymore when transforming. I can't cite the exact text and location, > but i believe it is when Lupin and Sirius are telling our trio the > story of how/why they became animagi when they're in the Shack. Look in the chapter where they go to the Shrieking Shack. The title in the US book is "Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs". All is explained there. My girls and I just re-read the chapter last night. Leon From siskiou at earthlink.net Thu Mar 7 18:20:28 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:20:28 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Puffskein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17839634716.20020307102028@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36167 Hi, Thursday, March 07, 2002, 8:40:44 AM, judyserenity wrote: > I was shocked when I read that in Fantastic Beasts, too. But maybe > Fred didn't kill it? Maybe the puffskein just got royally ticked off > and ran away, and that's why Ron didn't have it anymore? So, this incident is not mentioned in the four main books? I was starting to wonder why I never heard of it before. What's a puffskein, and what did Fred do to it? -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From bonnie at niche-associates.com Thu Mar 7 18:23:13 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 18:23:13 -0000 Subject: JKR's Plot hole In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36168 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "roseswicegood" wrote: > I hope this has not been covered before--does anyone know what the > plot hole was that JKR had to fix in GoF? > On another topic, my teen (not a real HP fan) said--why couldn't > Moody/Crouch turn anything into a port key like from his office? > *My* response :-) as I always have one, was that a port key would not > work inside Hogwarts and thus the Tournament had to be held on the > quidditch field. Please no angry words if this has been covered, I'm > new here. > Rose Swicegood > > *to JKR: please bring back Remus Lupin... JKR has not said what the plot hole in GoF was, because it would ruin at least one if not more surprises. Maybe when the series is over she can be persuaded to tell us, but not before, IMO. As for the portkey question, I don't think anyone has come up with a satisfactory explanation, IMO. I believe that the Quidditch field is considered a part of Hogwarts grounds, so whatever rules apply to the castle about Apparating and portkeys also apply to the grounds. JKR has also said that Remus Lupin will return for Book 5. --Dicentra, who is happy to say that no one gets beat up around here if the Magical Mods and List Elves can help it From Ali at zymurgy.org Thu Mar 7 19:17:24 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 19:17:24 -0000 Subject: Wizard wear and pockets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36169 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "adhara_black" wrote: > Adhara writes : > I too have been wondering about how the robes 'work'. Inner garments, > outer garments, pockets, etc. for exactly the same reasons. > In the film, Harry and the other students seem to wear Muggle clothes > under their outer 'uniform' robes. A shirt and school tie for classes > for example. But they wear casual gear at other times. For example, > Harry's wearing jeans and a torn red sweater when he confronts > Quirrell/Voldemort. No sign of robes at all! Since JKR is said to > have worked closely with Columbus and was very happy with the film, I > can't imagine she wouldn't have intervened if the clothing wasn't the > way she envisaged it in the books. > > Apart from all that, I always assumed that just like in the Muggle > world, there must be something like witch- and wizard-fashion and > they don't all wear the same. Certainly in PS/SS, we see descriptions > of them wearing different coloured robes in the street on the day > they celebrate Voldemort's (assumed) defeat. And Fugde's style is > certainly different. > > The use of Muggle clothing is not entirely clear to me. In GoF, > dressing as a Muggle to go to the Quidditch World Cup seems to be a > big deal, and from the descriptions it would seem the wizards and > witches are NOT used to it. On the other hand, they ALL dress as > Muggles to make their way to King's Cross Station every year, so they > don't attract attention. > > > > Oh well, as Eloise wrote, perhaps it's trivial. Perhaps it is trivial, but I think that there is an issue re muggle clothing. In GoF, when Vernon Dursley is wondering what the Weasley's will be wearing, Harry thinks about how the Weasley children wear muggle clothing in the school holidays - but the parents wear shabby robes (sorry I haven't got my rather battered GoF handy). This seems to me to imply that the kids normally wear robes when they're at Hogwarts. (Except in the holidays eg at Christmas all the Weasleys are given, and wear jumpers). If Harry wore muggle clothing at Hogwarts wouldn't he have got badly teased because his clothes were so big for him? afterall Ron is really embarassed over his dress robes, so it's clear that clothes do matter. Harry was wearing one of Dudley's old sweatshirts at the beginning of GoF, so he hasn't gone and bought himself a load of new muggle clothes. He obviously hasn't shrunk all the clothes either (unless the sweatshirt and jeans had been given to him since he'd come home for the holidays, and hadn't been able to use magic to change them). I suppose that canon is just confusing over the issue, and the film doesn't really help - Harry suddenly had properly fitting clothes when he got to Hogwarts, without explanation. Ali From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu Mar 7 19:19:13 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 19:19:13 -0000 Subject: JKR's Plot hole In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36170 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: > As for the portkey question, I don't think anyone has come up with a > satisfactory explanation, IMO. I always liked the suggestion that portkeys have to be cleared with Dumbledore, and that the Cup really was meant to be a portkey to transport the winner out of the maze, but that Bartie fiddled with the instructions. Eileen From Whirdy at aol.com Thu Mar 7 20:10:22 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:10:22 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who is Florence? Message-ID: <9a.21e3f5a0.29b9232e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36171 I think that Florence is the real first name of Mrs. Figgs. (First rule of Character Conservation) whirdy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bonnie at niche-associates.com Thu Mar 7 18:27:01 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 18:27:01 -0000 Subject: When did Snape's spying career begin? In-Reply-To: <11a.d15e33a.29b9095c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36172 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., IAmLordCassandra at a... wrote: > Dicentra > > > > Whoa! Hold the phones. Somebody check GoF again. (I've only got PoA > > with me today.) Does it *say* that Snape was a DE who turned or does > > it only say that he was a spy? What if he never was a DE? That would > > be interesting. Cassie replied: > Well, I think we can be sure that he was a DE. Why? Because he has the Dark > Mark burned on his arm. And he couldn't have done that himself because that > thing wouldn't work when Voldie touched his or another DE's mark. And from > what understand of it, though I don't have my GoF with me either, Snape was a > DE who defected and turned spy. Dicentra backpedals a bit: What I meant to say is what if Snape agreed to become a spy *before* becoming a DE? He would go along with Voldemort and get the Dark Mark burned in and all that, but never would he be a DE at heart. --Dicentra, who thinks this theory might be wrong but can't prove it at the moment > From huntleyl at mssm.org Thu Mar 7 20:36:52 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:36:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who is Florence? References: <9a.21e3f5a0.29b9232e@aol.com> Message-ID: <000c01c1c617$d0b42960$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 36173 Whiry said: >I think that Florence is the real first name of Mrs. Figgs. (First rule of >Character Conservation) Unless I am much mistaken, the first name of Mrs. Figg is Arabella (Dumbledore mentions her as part of the old crowd). And I've read several interviews with JRK that have her confirming that Arabella Figg of GoF and Mrs. Figg of PS/SS are one and the same. hope that helps, ^_^ laura ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just yesterday morning they let me know you were gone Suzanne the plans they made put an end to you I walked out this mornin' and I wrote down this song I just can't remember who to send it to I've seen fire and I've seen rain I've seen sunny days that I thought would never end I've seen lonely times when I could not find a friend But I always thought that I'd see you again -James Taylor "Fire and Rain" [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Mar 7 20:30:32 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 20:30:32 -0000 Subject: Werewolves and Sirius Black In-Reply-To: <3C87985A.53D39FB4@erols.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36174 uncmark wrote: > Are we thereforew to assume that Sirius Black is now a werewolf? Or > are anamagi in animal form immune to lycanthropy curses? Margaret Dean answered: > Apparently they are. Lupin remarks that "Werewolves are only > dangerous to people," and that seems to have been the rationale > behind the Marauders' study of the Animagus spell to begin with. > In animal form they could be with Remus safely even when he was > transformed. > > > --Margaret Dean > Yes and no. A little later, we're told that "Sirius and James transformed into animals so big that they could restrain a werewolf" (liberal translation from the Spanish Edition, PoA). I always took that to mean that a human cannot face a werewolf with any perspectives of winning the figth whithout being bitten at least once. However, big enough animals can face a wolf and stop him (specially a dog as big as a pony and any antlered beast), and small animals are very hard to catch. IMNSHO, the trio became animagus to face the werewolf in equal ability conditions and, being two against one, Sirius and James were able to restrain the werewolf mind until it calmed down, and thus could the human mind resourface (although only partially, as Lupin tells). Hope that helps Grey Wolf From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Mar 7 20:12:12 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 20:12:12 -0000 Subject: When did Snape's spying career begin? In-Reply-To: <11a.d15e33a.29b9095c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36175 Dicentra asked: > Somebody check GoF again. (I've only got PoA with me today.) Does > it *say* that Snape was a DE who turned or does it only say that he > was a spy? What if he never was a DE? That would be interesting. Cassie replied: > Well, I think we can be sure that he was a DE. Why? Because he has > the Dark Mark burned on his arm. He's got the Dark Mark, and from his reaction to Crouch/Moody in "The Egg and the Eye," he would seem to be deeply ashamed of it. Also, Dumbledore told the tribunal that he was, in the Pensieve chapter. "I have given evidence already on this matter. . . .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." I don't think he was lying (although like Athena, I do often find myself wondering why he chose announce it to the entire room like that). Yeah. Snape was a DE, all right. -- Elkins From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Thu Mar 7 22:39:25 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 16:39:25 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's Plot hole References: Message-ID: <3C87EC1D.CBF11FDA@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36176 roseswicegood wrote: > > I hope this has not been covered before--does anyone know what the > plot hole was that JKR had to fix in GoF? Rowling won't tell us. She says that it would give too much away. I think it actually do to do with Moody. And she ended up making him Crouch at the end to make "someone" the bad guy. > On another topic, my teen (not a real HP fan) said--why couldn't > Moody/Crouch turn anything into a port key like from his office? > *My* response :-) as I always have one, was that a port key would not > work inside Hogwarts and thus the Tournament had to be held on the > quidditch field. Please no angry words if this has been covered, I'm > new here. > Rose Swicegood > > *to JKR: please bring back Remus Lupin... Lupin will be back in book 5 and book 7, and hopefully alive in the epilogue. -Katze From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Mar 7 20:46:55 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 20:46:55 -0000 Subject: Puffskein In-Reply-To: <17839634716.20020307102028@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36177 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne wrote: > So, this incident is not mentioned in the four main books? > I was starting to wonder why I never heard of it before. > > What's a puffskein, and what did Fred do to it? > > -- > Best regards, > Susanne For everyone who hasn't got the book "Fantastical Beasts and Were to Find Them" (Newt Scamander): Puffskein: Found worldwide. Spherical in shape and covered in soft, custard-coloured fur, it is a docile creature that has no objection to being cuddled or thrown about. Easy to care for, it emits a low humming noise when contented. Ron used to have one, and Fred used it for Quidditch practice. Hope that helps Grey Wolf PD: The book is actually selled with no major bussiness purposes, instead all the money going to the Harry's Books fund to help needy children in the poorest countries in the world. I got it for 14 sickles 3 knuts ($3.99 US), which is quite cheap, and recomend it to everyone who's a potterologist enough to be in this list. GW From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com Thu Mar 7 18:09:46 2002 From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 18:09:46 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIPs and Young Love Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36178 In discussions of age-appropriateness, Laura said: >I've heard allot of noise about how Jo is so great at developing the >characters/books according to character's age. However, IRL, can you >imagine *any* 14 year old boy just being *on the cusp* of noticing girls? Well, do give them some credit. In PoA, at 13, Ron was with-it enough to notice the curvaceous Mme. Rosmerta, and Harry was with-it enough to blush when Cho wished him luck on the way to the Quidditch final. So that gives us a year to step back and say "how appropriate is it for 13 year old boys to be noticing girls?" I was born ten years before the characters, and in the U.S.A., but I recall really only being interested in girls in that manner when I got into middle school, so about 13 or so. I think she's doing alright. And I second your opinion that it's alright that JKR has avoided making Harry and Ron too realistically vulgar or, er, self-exploratory. :) J _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From aeshapi at yahoo.com Thu Mar 7 22:33:52 2002 From: aeshapi at yahoo.com (aeshapi) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 22:33:52 -0000 Subject: The Trouble with Puffskeins (was Re: Puffskein) In-Reply-To: <17839634716.20020307102028@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36179 Susanne asked (regarding Fred being accused of killing Ron's pet Puffskein): > So, this incident is not mentioned in the four main books? > I was starting to wonder why I never heard of it before. > > What's a puffskein, and what did Fred do to it? In the book Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them a Puffskein is described as a fuzzy spherical docile creature that is "much beloved by wizarding children for many generations and ... remains a highly popular wazarding pet." It has a fun habit that you should read the book to find out about. This book is a reproduction of Harry's copy of this book and was also used by Ron since "his fell apart." In the margin in Ron's hand appears: "I had one of them once" "What happened to it?" (Hermione's hand) "fred used it for Bludger practice" When I read this, I assumed that this was a bit of a joke on Ron's part. That the Puffskein lived to a ripe old age (for a Puffskein) and died. Since the death of a pet is never fun to talk about, instead of saying it died, Ron remembering Fred's constant threats to use the Puffskein for Bludger practice (never carried out, uses this as his way of referring to his pet's death. Of course all of this is my opinion and has no basis in any of the books except based on the personalities of the characters. Is this an acceptable first post? -- Alley Cat From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Mar 7 23:58:39 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 23:58:39 -0000 Subject: Neville and the Canary Creams In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36180 Kimberley asked: > Oh - while I'm at it... why do people see the canary cream thing > with Neville as mean? . . . .Those of you who consider it to be > mean, why is that? Did it seem like ridicule to you? Not necessarily like ridicule, no. As you point out later, the canary cream was on a public plate, so no one was being particularly targetted by the prank. I did see it as rather mean, though, mainly because of the way that Fred gave Neville reassurance that the custard creams really *were* safe. I didn't like that much. Then, I admit that I'm not a big fan of practical jokes in general, and of food tampering in particular, so I'm probably biased. Maybe I'm just unusually squeamish and humorless when it comes to my food, but food tampering is a form of practical joking that I tend to find particularly nasty and unamusing. That bit in PoA about the Twins slipping beetles into Bill's soup...ugh. Not funny. And Neville would seem to feel much the same way. When Fred tells Hermione that "it's the custard creams you've got to watch--" while Neville has just bit into one of the custard creams, he immediately chokes and spits it out. To my mind, that indicates quite clearly that whatever the twins have done to the sweets, he *really* wants absolutely nothing to do with it. And then Fred reassures them that no, really, the custard creams are fine. Just to trick him into eating one. And...oh, I don't know. That really does seem mean to me. Springing booby-trapped sweets on people isn't my idea of a funny joke to begin with, admittedly, but I still find that far more acceptable than reassuring someone who *obviously* finds the idea dismaying and distasteful that their food has *not* been tampered with -- when in fact it has. I also see a significant difference between simply springing a joke on someone (when you are, after all, a notorious prankster), and convincing someone to trust you...only to then spring a joke on him. The latter is meaner, to my mind, because it forces the victim to look doubly the fool: first for being trusting enough to swallow the trick to begin with; and then a second time, for being naive enough to trust in the prankster's deceitful masquerade of sincerity. > I am very protective of Neville, he's one of my most beloved > characters and I hate that the trio leaves him out all the time and > when McG was so mean to him about the passwords I wanted to shake > her. Yes. All of my buffoonery over his backstory aside, I, too, love Neville. I was a weird little semi-autistic space-cadet of a child myself, and so I tend to identify very deeply with him. (Did I even *once* remember to bring in one of my permission slips in grade school? No. I don't believe that I ever did. Not once. I was just *notorious* for that sort of thing as a child. And I used to get lost a lot, too. I would get off the school bus at the wrong stop and then wander around for hours, trying to figure out where my house could have disappeared to. No, not joking.) > When I read the bit about the canary cream, I thought it was great > because while Hermione treats Neville with great kindness, it also > seems rather condescending to me. Really? Oh, I'm *so* glad that someone else feels that way! I was beginning to think that was just me. Yes. Hermione is kind to him, and of course he appreciates that, because really, she's the only one who is, and he doesn't have any other friends. But at the same time, I do see a certain condescension in her treatment of Neville. When she approaches him after Fake Moody's DADA class, for example, that particular way that she explains to Ron and Harry "Neville," before marching purposefully towards him -- as if he's just the Cause of the Week, you know, or a chore that must be taken care of -- I don't think that Neville is at all obtuse when it comes to interpersonal matters. He's well aware of the condescension. And frankly, it really didn't surprise me that he chose to try to gloss over his distress. I don't know if Neville would want to confide his family history in *anyone* at this point in his life, but even he did, I still don't think he'd be willing to talk to Hermione about it. She's shown him kindness and support, but not much of the type of respect that inspires personal revelation, IMO. I'll even let you in on a little secret here. I thought that Lupin's oh-so-blatant "let's bolster Neville's confidence" was kind of condescending too, to tell you the truth. And you *know* how much I adore Lupin! > To me the canary cream thing wasn't Fred and George singling out > a "weak" person to pick on. I think at best it was them not > differentiating between "poor weak Neville" and everyone else who > *would* be a target of their jokes, and at worst it was them > putting out canary creams and Neville being the one to pick one up, > meaning that they had no particular target in mind. You know, you've got a very good point there. The fact that Neville is pudgy probably *was* a large part of what made the joke seem so particularly unkind to me, but of course, you're quite right: Neville wasn't singled out to serve as the target originally. And I agree with you that from Neville's own point of view, the way that his housemates generally single him out for pity and condescension (when they're not simply ignoring him) is probably only marginally more pleasant than the way that the Slytherins single him out for abuse. So yes. Point taken. Not sparing Neville their practical jokes any more than they spare anyone else *is* a point in the twins' favor for me. > What's more, the incident showed Neville in a very good light, as I > see it. We see that Neville is a good sport who's comfortable > enough with himself despite his insecurities that he can appreciate > a good joke, even if the joke is him. I agree that the incident shows Neville in a very good light. It does show him to be a good sport, and to possess a certain generosity of spirit. I don't know if I really believe that Neville thought the joke itself all that "good," though. I didn't get the impression that he liked the idea of the tampered sweets at *all.* And as he couldn't himself *see* what he looked like as a canary, it strikes me as unlikely that the metamorphosis could possibly have been nearly as amusing for him as it was for everyone else. But of course, once one has become the target of a practical joke, the best course generally is to laugh along with everyone else, even if one didn't personally find the joke all that amusing. After all, assuming that there was no malice intended, and nothing at all personal about the joke, then why put a damper on everyone else's fun by refusing to laugh along with them? -- Elkins, who has indeed finally learned to laugh at practical jokes even when she finds them profoundly unamusing, but who suspects that she still can't do so terribly *convincingly.* From mercia at ireland.com Thu Mar 7 22:50:49 2002 From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 22:50:49 -0000 Subject: When did Snape's spying career begin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36181 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: > > > Whoa! Hold the phones. Somebody check GoF again. (I've only got PoA > with me today.) Does it *say* that Snape was a DE who turned or does > it only say that he was a spy? What if he never was a DE? That would > be interesting. > > --Dicentra, noting that it would mean the demise of George and his > sister Diana and many other interesting theories. Don't panic. We are very definitely told that Snape was a DE. GoF Ch. 30, 'The Pensieve' (p.513 UK edition), Dumbledore speaking. '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.' I am sure that it is only my horribly twisted and suspicious mind that has occasionally wondered if that last sentence could possible conceal an ironic double meaning. You know, the evil Dumbledore thing which I mostly resist believing in. Mercia From tabouli at unite.com.au Fri Mar 8 00:41:28 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 11:41:28 +1100 Subject: Map musings, werewolfery, Lockhart Message-ID: <003f01c1c63a$23bd5ce0$9127ddcb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 36182 This Marauder's Map always makes me muse. The more I think about it, the more questions come to mind... Eloise: > (The biggest potential plot hole, is that in PS/SS, it should have shown Lord Voldemort everywhere that Quirrel went.)< Hmm, dunno, my feeling is that we can patch over Map plotholes like this with a mere "the Map wasn't designed to cope with unusual magically-induced circumstances", such as the double Hermione and Harry with the Time turner, or the phantom Voldemort living in Quirrell's head, or someone who turned up to Hogwarts in the arms of a weeping Filch, cursed into the form of a cat called Mrs Norris (glances fondly at the FLIRTIAC dinghy). After all, it's working pretty hard already, and it *was* invented by a bunch of 15 year old boys who wanted it for "check the coast is clear" purposes, rather than "uncover magical mysteries" purposes. Which brings me to something I've always wondered about - what level of talent would those lads have needed to develop something as impressive and powerful as the Marauder's Map at only 15 with only 4+ years of magical training? I can see them coming up with the concept (whose imagination do people think was the mastermind there - James?), and I presume that dedicated research a la Hermione would probably yield the components of the theory eventually, but still, even Crouch/Moody is impressed (and alarmed). Then there's Voldemort himself, who came up with that nifty "store my 16yo self in a diary" trick at a similar age. My point is, the Trio are now at around the age and level of training when these feats were achieved, and I really don't think we've seen anything like the level of ingenuity and sheer craftsmanship exhibited by past generations. OK, so the twins have come up with some Wizard Wheezes, but come now, a transfiguration potion in a snack is hardly up there with the Marauder's Map or Riddle's diary. And all the tricky situations we've seen wriggled out of thus far have been dealt with fairly simply in magical terms - an Accio spell to get a broomstick, a Polyjuice potion. Moreover, researching an answer to a specific question as simple as "how can Harry breathe underwater?" looked to be insanely difficult in GoF in the absence of some form of magical catalogue or Boolean search engine. Compare that with the sort of research and ingenuity required to develop the Map! (and why hasn't anyone else in the adult world come up with something along these lines for surveillance purposes before or since - is this concept so original and creative as all that? Or is it just that Hogwarts is the only place in the Wizarding World which a decent research library, and the university-less adult wizard population just doesn't have the access to information Hogwarts students do?) Could it be that in fifth year students reach a critical mass of magical knowledge (perhaps a library search engine spell?) which enables them to invent fiendishly clever magical devices? Will we see the Trio collaborating on some impossibly ingenious device in OoP? Or are they too busy rescuing each other and the world from Voldemort's evil plans to find time to invent complex magical devices, or less ingenious/talented/imaginative than their forbears? Moreover, if three fifth year students can (a) research and (b) successfully execute the magic to turn themselves into Animagi, and even (c) teach and help the "talentless" Pettigrew to do something so purportedly difficult, why doesn't everyone do it? (and surely the ever-burgeoning number of unregistered Animagi should come as no surprise). On the subject of the Map, one more musing: the Map never lies, right? Shows who polyjuiced and animagified people really are, right? OK then - what do you think would happen if and when Voldemort turns up in Hogwarts? (let's avoid the Quirrell bit for now - arguably he wasn't properly present then). Would he show up as Tom Riddle or Lord Voldemort? Is your map label fixed at birth, or can it change if your "true nature" changes? (and at what point would Tom's label have swapped to Voldemort, if so?) Dicentra: > just as Lupin transformed into a werewolf--Pettigrew gets hold of Lupin's dropped wand (***note to those who wonder about lost wands: apparently, they do get dropped when wizards transform***) < Devin: > Even leaving this aside, werewolves maybe don't have the same rules of Animagi as far as wands are concerned (and clothes?--does it mention anywhere for sure about the werewolf and clothes?). I still think Animagi retain their wands (they certainly seem to retain their clothes). Another question, canon is strangely silent on the state of Pettigrew's clothes in PoA...is he naked?< I think the fact that the werewolf transformation is *involuntary* is significant here. Presumably if clothes transform, a wand in the robe pocket would transform as well. Mind you, I've always found this a bit too convenient for my liking, as I recounted moons ago in my "Animagus Clothing Cop-Out" post... Hey, here's a truly grisly end to the series for everyone... Harry suddenly realises that the wolf that has been set on him in a last gesture of defiance from an almost-dead Voldemort is in fact Lupin in werewolf form, and has seconds to come up with a plan to subdue him and put him somewhere safely where he can wait for sunrise. While struggling to get an appropriate spell organised, Harry gets bitten and knocked unconscious. The next, last morning, he awakens in the hospital wing, to discover that Moody arrived just in time to kill Lupin and Stun him. Harry, Madame Pomfrey's protests unregistered in his ears, rises blankly from his bed and walks out into the world to face the rest of his life as a werewolf, the fame of killing Voldemort never compensating for the mark of Lupin's teeth on his throat, fading to a new, crescent shaped SCAR... (note to those who haven't read this: JKR claims that the last word of Book 7 will be "scar"). Nyarth: > But this raises another question in my mind. Vampire or no, why didn't Snape tell anyone about Lupin? I know Dumbledore made him promise not to, but at that early age was a promise to Dumbledore really worth that much to him? You'd think he'd be itching to run off and tell everyone that that nasty Gryffindor is a werewolf, and he was right all along... and instead he spends his remaining two years at Hogwarts biting his tongue. < Hmmm, I see the point, but not necessarily. There's another factor to take into account - Snape, however determined to smear Lupin and friends, has just had the fright of his life. Were it not for James, he'd have been torn to pieces by a werewolf or at the very least a severely injured werewolf himself. I think that might well be traumatic enough to seal his lips and keep his head down for a couple of years. After all, if (in Snape's mind) Sirius was murderous enough to send him into the jaws of a werewolf in return for greasy snooping, the mind boggles to think what he might do to someone who publicly exposed one of Sirius' best friends to public condemnation and disgrace. In closing, do people think Lockhart went to Hogwarts? If so, and if we can assume he's young enough to have been there when Dumbledore was about (which surely he was, as D was around even 50 years ago as Transfiguration teacher), surely Dumbledore and his ex-schoolmates at least would have known he wasn't talented enough to do the tasks of which he boasted. I'd bet he had an image makeover at some stage (after discovering he could hide his weak-chinned weediness with flamboyance and foppery): could he have adopted "Gilderoy Lockhart" as a stage name as well? Wouldn't have fooled Dumbledore, of course, but then, D did seem to know exactly what he was hiring in Lockhart, judging by his "hoist with your own petard" comments. So why hire him? Must come back to his philosophy about "life lessons" being more important in the long run. Teach students not to be fooled by appearances, maybe. Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siskiou at earthlink.net Fri Mar 8 00:10:35 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:10:35 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Puffskein In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1136373188.20020307161035@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36183 Hi, Thursday, March 07, 2002, 12:46:55 PM, grey_wolf_c wrote: > Puffskein: > Found worldwide. Spherical in shape and covered in soft, > custard-coloured fur, it is a docile creature that has no > objection to being cuddled or thrown about. Easy to care for, it > emits a low humming noise when contented. of customs> Sound exactly like a tribble ;) > Ron used to have one, and Fred used it for Quidditch practice. Like, as in hitting it around instead of a bludger? That *would* be pretty cruel! > Hope that helps Thanks! It did. I'll have to keep my eye out for that book. How about the other book (something about Quidditch?). Is it something I'd want to get, too? (Money is tight, and our library doesn't have those 2 books. And I normally only buy books that I've read from the Library and know I'll want to re-read many times) -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From rshuson80 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 8 00:27:12 2002 From: rshuson80 at yahoo.com (nyarth_meow) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 00:27:12 -0000 Subject: When did Snape's spying career begin/ Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36184 JKR had Dumbledore say in GoF: "Severus Snape is now no more a Death Eater than I am." Mercia said: > > I am sure that it is only my horribly twisted and suspicious mind > that has occasionally wondered if that last sentence could possible > conceal an ironic double meaning. You know, the evil Dumbledore > thing which I mostly resist believing in. > I say: It's not only your horribly twisted and suspicious mind.. The second time i read GoF that phrase literally jumped out the page at me. An interesting choice of words if nothing else. That, coupled with Dumbledore's triumphant glint thing nearly tipped me right over the edge into paranoia. Now I don't seriously think Dumbledore is a secret Death Eater, but it did lead me to wonder about his judgement sometimes. After all, this is a man that gave a job to Quirrell, and to Gilderoy Lockhart. He also *apparantly* failed to notice for three entire terms that one of his closest friends (Moody/Barty) was actually an imposter. -Nyarth From srae1971 at iglou.com Fri Mar 8 00:56:55 2002 From: srae1971 at iglou.com (Shannon) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 19:56:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neville and the Canary Creams In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20020307195655.00a8a8a0@pop.iglou.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36185 At 11:58 PM 3/7/2002 -0000, Elkins wrote: >I'll even let you in on a little secret here. I thought that Lupin's >oh-so-blatant "let's bolster Neville's confidence" was kind of >condescending too, to tell you the truth. And you *know* how much I >adore Lupin! I assume you're talking about the boggart incident? I might agree in other circumstances. However, Snape had just been horrible to him yet again, for no good reason. From Neville's perspective, this was the first class with a new teacher who may not yet have gotten wind of his reputation. A chance to not be the one who always screws up. And then Snape tries to humiliate him. Lupin probably hadn't thought about who would start the lesson until Snape opened his big nasty mouth. In Neville's place I'd have been ready to pledge undying loyalty to Lupin for so smoothly deflecting Snape's obvious attempts to torture Neville. And because of that, Neville, who is miserably bad in most every other class with the teachers who have no confidence in him at all, succeeds. Shannon From itachimusume at yahoo.com Fri Mar 8 01:17:10 2002 From: itachimusume at yahoo.com (itachimusume) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 01:17:10 -0000 Subject: When did Snape's spying career begin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36186 > Dicentra backpedals a bit: > What I meant to say is what if Snape agreed to become a spy *before* > becoming a DE? He would go along with Voldemort and get the Dark Mark > burned in and all that, but never would he be a DE at heart. > > --Dicentra, who thinks this theory might be wrong but can't prove it > at the moment > > > Wow, now that's an impressive question. If dumbledore convinced snapes to go to the dark side for him, it would explain why Dumbledore trusts Snapes so much. and why he is convinced that snape will do no harm,a dn why he's protecting him. i think more often then not we like to think that all slytherin as being dark mages, that's why we would assume that snape was a bad guy before changing in to a good guy. Humm, I need more time to ponder this question... Seiko From jloveys at zoom.co.uk Thu Mar 7 19:14:15 2002 From: jloveys at zoom.co.uk (jloveys at zoom.co.uk) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 19:14:15 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's Plot hole In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1015528455.3c87bc07d7ff4@speedy.server.zoom.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 36187 >>Rosewicegood I hope this has not been covered before-- does anyone know what the plot hole was that JKR had to fix in GoF?<< I've wondered about this too. I heard there was something wrong with the order in which the people came out of the wand in the Priori Incantatem sequence - that Harry's dad came out first. However, in my version (she says after checking) It says Lily comes out first and she says to Harry that his father's coming now (or something to that effect). Looking at the inside cover, it says I have a second edition, so maybe whatever it was was changed before I got mine. But then there are a few mistakes like this - apparently she can't count either. ;) Get your own zoom email - click here - http://www.zoom.co.uk/ From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Fri Mar 8 01:58:37 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 17:58:37 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Map musings, werewolfery, Lockhart In-Reply-To: <003f01c1c63a$23bd5ce0$9127ddcb@price> References: <003f01c1c63a$23bd5ce0$9127ddcb@price> Message-ID: <925521851.20020307175837@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36188 Thursday, March 07, 2002, 4:41:28 PM, Tabouli wrote: T> Could it be that in fifth year students reach a critical mass of magical T> knowledge (perhaps a library search engine spell?) T> which enables them to invent fiendishly clever magical devices? That makes sense... But let's hope they're better than Internet Search Engines... Harry: So -- *Is* there a spell for what we need? Hermione: I dunno -- I keep getting all these porn sites with pictures of Celestina Warbeck topless. Ron: Where?? Where??!! (They glare at him.) T> Will we see the Trio collaborating on some impossibly T> ingenious device in OoP? I really hope they start doing some really clever stuff, just to keep things interesting... T> Would he show up as Tom Riddle or Lord Voldemort? Is your map T> label fixed at birth, or can it change if your "true nature" changes? I'm betting it shows "Tom Riddle"... I can imagine V getting very mad about it too... T> Harry, Madame Pomfrey's protests unregistered T> in his ears, rises blankly from his bed and walks out into the world to face the rest T> of his life as a werewolf, the fame of T> killing Voldemort never compensating for the mark of Lupin's teeth on his T> throat, fading to a new, crescent shaped SCAR... God, I hope not! T> In closing, do people think Lockhart went to Hogwarts? Nah, he took the "Qwikspell" course. -- Dave From lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 8 00:24:13 2002 From: lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com (Ms Lizard Gizzard) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:24:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who is Florence? In-Reply-To: <9a.21e3f5a0.29b9232e@aol.com> Message-ID: <20020308002413.79464.qmail@web13504.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36189 --- Whirdy at aol.com wrote: > I think that Florence is the real first name of Mrs. > Figgs. (First rule of > Character Conservation) > Mrs. Figg's first name is most likely Arabella. (See the end of GoF.) Sorry, I'm new here. What is the first rule of character conservation? (What is any rule?) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From Aberforths_Goat at Yahoo.com Fri Mar 8 00:43:26 2002 From: Aberforths_Goat at Yahoo.com (Aberforth's Goat) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 01:43:26 +0100 Subject: JKR's Plot hole References: Message-ID: <012701c1c63a$435a51c0$0200a8c0@shasta> No: HPFGUIDX 36190 Dicentra wrote, > JKR has not said what the plot hole in GoF was, because it would ruin > at least one if not more surprises. Maybe when the series is over she > can be persuaded to tell us, but not before, IMO. Actually, she spelled it out in a couple of interviews - and it was connected to Ron Weasley's cousin, who was originally slated for Rita Skeeter's role. Here's an excerpt from an interview in Entertainment Weekly: [Jo has just said that GoF was the hardest book to write becasue she noticed a "gaping hole in the middle of the plot"] Q. And what exactly was that gaping hole all about? A. I had to pull a character. There you go: ''the phantom character of 'Harry Potter.''' She was a Weasley cousin [related to Ron Weasley, Harry's best friend]. She served the same function that Rita Skeeter [a sleazy investigative journalist] now serves. Rita was always going to be in the book, but I built her up, because I needed a kind of conduit for information outside the school. Originally, this girl fulfilled this purpose. Baaaaaa! Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray) _______________________ "Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been bravery...." _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Fri Mar 8 01:58:25 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 01:58:25 -0000 Subject: The Pixie Song (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36191 The Pixie Song (from CoS, Chap. 6) To the tune of Monkey by Irving Bungie ? but most directly on the The Monkey Song from Animaniacs Episode One. http://www2.cruzio.com/~keeper/00.html Dedicated to Devin THE SCENE: The DADA classroom. LOCKHART is about to display a cage of captive Pixies to a class of second-year Gryffindors LOCKHART One Monday morning I teach me class With a cage of pixies, they so full of sass I quiz my class on colors I like I warn me class how pixies will strike LOCKHART: Don't know what to say de pixies won't do! GRYFFINDOR STUDENTS: Don't know what to say de pixies won't do! LOCKHART: Don't know what to say de pixies won't do! STUDENTS & PIXIES: Don't know what to say de pixies won't do! LOCKHART I whip de cover right off their cage. The pixies scream, they so full of rage They voice is shrill and they start to roar I go to cage and open up door LOCKHART: Don't know what to say de pixies won't do! PIXIES: Don't know what to say de pixies won't do! STUDENTS: Don't know what to say de pixies won't do! ALL: Don't know what to say de pixies won't do! NEVILLE I shake so hard that I get sick But I'm telling you, friends, those pixies was quick! The pixies picked up by my two ears Then they hang me from iron chandeliers NEVILLE: Don't know what to say de pixies won't do! PIXIES: Don't know what to say de pixies won't do! NEVILLE & LOCKHART: Don't know what to say de pixies won't do! ALL: Don't know what to say de pixies won't do! HARRY The pixies are cuter than Tribbles on `Trek The pixies leave DADA classroom a wreck They shred the paper and they break the glass They rapidly approach a critical mass HARRY & NEVILLE: Don't know what to say de pixies won't do! STUDENTS & PIXIES: Don't know what to say de pixies won't do! LOCKHART: Peskipiksi Pesternomi won't do! ALL: They took his wand, out the window they threw! RON Then Lockhart, he tell class they're dismissed Then he look at three of us and he say this: LOCKHART I've business I must attend to backstage Just nip the blighters right back into their cage LOCKHART: Don't care to see what de pixies won't do! TRIO: Path of least resistance is his avenue! LOCKHART: I know the trio is sure to pull through! PIXIES: We know there's nothing Lockhart can do! (Exit LOCKHART rapidly ? The Trio, not without considerable effort, round up the remaining Pixies) HARRY & RON: Well, we know he can't teach and pixies can't snare It takes too much time from fixing his hair HERMIONE: He wants us that we should work with our hands I'm proud to be one of his biggest fans. HARRY & RON: Don't know what to say what Lockhart can't do! HERMIONE : He wants us some hands-on work to pursue! PIXIES: Capturing us he has not the clue. ALL: Don't know what to say what Lockhart can't do! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From rshuson80 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 8 01:24:30 2002 From: rshuson80 at yahoo.com (nyarth_meow) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 01:24:30 -0000 Subject: Some Sirius Black Questions. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36192 Apologies if this has been covered before, but I was wondering if I'm the only person who thinks Black isn't quite all that he appears? OK, all I have is gut-feeling and no real evidence, but I'm interested to know if anyone else has the same? I just can't help thinking he's too good to be true, and that Harry trusts him *way* too readily. Within the space of an hour, he goes from Sirius Black, evil parent-killing traitor, to Sirius Black, can I move in with you please? In that space of time, IMHO, Black might have proved his innocence, but he doesn't give a very good account of himself. He breaks Ron's leg without remorse, is all set to kill a man in cold blood, and pays *very* little attention initially to Harry in his obsession with Wormtail. And why did he slash holes in the Fat Lady? If nothing else, he's not very stable. I know Azkaban is not considered good for your mental health, but there's another pre-Azkaban event that raises questions; Did Black really intend to kill Snape when he played that prank on him? He set him up so he'd come face to face with a werewolf. Surely he knew this could easily result in serious injury or death? This is a step beyond the usual schoolboy prank even if they did hate each other. Dumbledore told Harry at the end of "Philosopher's Stone" that his father saved Snape's life, so he clearly believed the "prank" could have resulted in his death. How did Black escape expulsion? An attempt on the life of another student strikes me as about as serious as it gets, however unpleasant that student might be. Did Snape do something truely awful to provoke it, or was Black just not thinking of the consequences? Oh yeah, and I know he can stay inconspicuous by being a dog, but how do you hide a hippogriff? -Nyarth (Is more of a cat person ^_^) From Aegeus86 at aol.com Thu Mar 7 21:33:22 2002 From: Aegeus86 at aol.com (Aegeus86 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:33:22 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who is Florence? Message-ID: <11b.cd8d796.29b936a2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36193 In a message dated 3/7/2002 3:14:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, Whirdy at aol.com writes: > I think that Florence is the real first name of Mrs. Figgs. (First rule of > Character Conservation) > > whirdy No, Mrs. Figg's first name is "Arabella", it's said at the end of GoF, and JKR confirmed that it is the same Mrs. Figg. Can't tell you page number, because I don't have my books with me. ~Aegeus [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Fri Mar 8 08:19:28 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 08:19:28 -0000 Subject: Plot Hole / Harry's relatives Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36194 My apologies to everyone for mis-stating what Kenilworthy Whisp wrote about flying-animal animagi and people transfigured into bats. (How much brain power can take it to remember something as simple as "No! No! Bad ferret!") Aberforth's Goat wrote: > Actually, she spelled it out in a couple of interviews - and it was > connected to Ron Weasley's cousin, who was originally slated for > Rita Skeeter's role. Here's an excerpt from an interview in > Entertainment Weekly: My recollection of what JKR said to Lino (is that the name? Black guy on BBC who was an early champion of Potter?) was that the Weasley cousin accidentally slipped out in the process of fixing the plot hole. I used your very own search engine http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ and found what seems to be the interview I remember except it's listed as HP Galleries Interview at http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/Fall_2000_BBC_Newsround.htm Here's the quote: <> btw, I read that there page in View Source because my Netscape goes crazy trying to process it as html. I tried IE (because there are more and more pages that only work for IE) and the page did come up, but with a box telling me A Runtime Error has Occured Line 3 Unterminated String Constant. Unc Mark wrote: > Are all of Harry's family dead? (snip) There was discussion that > Lily might be Dumbledore's grandfather, Given his age, Dumbledore > might be Harry's great-grandfather, great-great, or > great-great-great-grandfather. Canon tells us that all of Harry's family are dead (or at least gone). When Dumbledore and McGonagall meet at the Dursley doorstep on that night in 1981: "I've come to bring Harry to his aunt and uncle. They're the only family he has left now." From lmccabe at sonic.net Fri Mar 8 06:46:20 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (linda_mccabe) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 06:46:20 -0000 Subject: Portkeys and glints (Was: JKR's Plot hole) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36195 Rose Swicegood wrote: On another topic, my teen (not a real HP fan) said--why couldn't Moody/Crouch turn anything into a port key like from his office? *My* response :-) as I always have one, was that a port key would not work inside Hogwarts and thus the Tournament had to be held on the quidditch field. Please no angry words if this has been covered, I'm new here. And Dicentra replied in part: As for the portkey question, I don't think anyone has come up with a satisfactory explanation, IMO. I believe that the Quidditch field is considered a part of Hogwarts grounds, so whatever rules apply to the castle about Apparating and portkeys also apply to the grounds. --Dicentra, who is happy to say that no one gets beat up around here if the Magical Mods and List Elves can help it Athena: Here is my take which I'm sure is probably a little different - There are two big reasons for this. One is technical in that when writing a book you should have a climax at the end and then have a short epilogue to tie up any loose ends. (JKR broke that rule when she had three, count 'em three chapters after the bloody climax.) But if Moody/Crouch Jr. had used a portkey to transport Harry on an odd dated Tuesday in March, then there would have been too many months afterward to speed through as an epilogue. Since JKR has set up each volume as representing one year, we know that it is during the final exam time that Harry's life will be in mortal peril. (Another reason to dread the coming of finals!) So she had to try to do something that would be at the end of the school year. The second reason is more character-oriented and does not deal with the finer points of how one should diagram a plot for the most effect. This has to do with Voldemort's ego. He wanted to have as much bang for his buck in his resurrection. He lives the Machiavellian rule that "it is more secure to be feared than to be loved." He wanted everyone to be in total fear and have a greater level of fear than they had in 1981 when he fell. To do that, he devised the scheme to have all eyes on Harry Potter again. Being the leading contestant (and sentimental favorite) going into the final would make all eyes in the wizarding world be on Harry once again. If instead of cheering Harry's victory, they found out that Harry was now dead and Voldemort had risen once again - Voila! No one could escape the emotion of FEAR. He had waited for thirteen years without a true body, a few months here or there wouldn't make that much of a difference to him. Now if Voldemort had risen on an odd dated Tuesday in March, he'd still have the wizarding world in a turmoil, but there wouldn't be the same buildup of hopeful expection for Harry and then have hopes dashed and their greatest fears realized. Instead, Voldemort's return is known at the end of the book to those students at Hogwarts who will now tell their parents. They'll in turn not want to believe it and start pestering the Ministry of Magic. Since it hasn't been in the Daily Prophet yet, many will likely be highly skeptical - feeling that this is such big news how could it not be known in the press if it is indeed true. Not the fear factor that Voldemort had envisioned on his return. Besides that Harry embarrassed him in front of his minions. He had hoped to deftly dispose of Harry but instead was once again bested by the young one (although for the first time Voldemort wasn't harmed during the confrontation.) Right now Harry represents hope for the wizarding world. They know about Harry being "The Boy Who Lived" and they'll have heard about the SS/PS climax because everyone at Hogwart's knew about it. They won't know the the Riddle confrontation, but they knew that Harry did something spectacular again at the end of his second school year which saved the life of the youngest Weasley, and now they'll start hearing about Cedric Diggory's death/Voldemort's return/Harry surviving a duel with Voldemort. Harry represents HOPE, the only thing that drives out fear. That will make Voldemort crazy and I think now he won't care how Harry is killed and will be satisfied if anyone working for him accomplishes the task. Since we've seen the Polyjuice Potion used twice - everyone needs to watch their hair and Harry will have to watch his back everywhere. And as for the glint in Dumbledore's eyes - my guess is he's thinking about the Life-Debt thing. Voldemort's body was made of unicorn blood (makes the person drinking it cursed), the bones of his murdered father (that would also make him cursed), the hand of Pettigrew who owes a life debt to Harry Potter, and Harry Potter's blood - someone who's goodness and the love of a mother saved him from evil - taken by force (also would be then cursed.) To me that adds up to Voldemort being triply cursed and in debt to Harry Potter. Dumbledore may have sized all that up quickly and felt triumphant that possibly Voldemort can be permanently dispatched at some point like Grindlewald was back in 1945. (Which I'm waiting to hear that backstory told.) I also *know* in my heart of hearts that Pettigrew did not tell Voldemort about Harry saving his life. If he had, then Voldemort would never have used Wormtail's hand. He would have found another Death Eater for that ingredient and he probably would also have killed Wormtail at some point just to be rid of a deputy in Harry Potter's debt. That deceit on Pettigrew's part towards Voldemort will come back to haunt the nasty guy. I'm also gratified that Elkins shares my wonderment about Dumbledore's admission about Snape being a double agent in front of a roomful of witches and wizards. It may have been dramatic, but not very shrewd. -Athena From adatole at yahoo.com Fri Mar 8 06:49:00 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (adatole) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 06:49:00 -0000 Subject: Neville and the Canary Creams In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20020307195655.00a8a8a0@pop.iglou.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36196 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Shannon wrote: > I assume you're talking about the boggart incident? > >Lupin probably hadn't thought about > who would start the lesson until Snape opened his big nasty mouth. **************** Let's take this a step further: While Lupin does not harber the undying hatred of Snape that his friend Black does, there is still no love lost. Agreed? Now Lupin knows what the lesson is about (ie: Boggarts) and what they do (become your worst fear) and how you defeat them (make them look rediculous). Put 2 and 2 and 2 together. He sees how terrified Neville is of Snape. He uses basic logic to figure out what the boggart would become if presented to Neville at this time. Now maybe Neville is normally terrified of snakes, or worms, or hair-lice, or Hermione. But *right now* Neville's worst fear just happens to be someone Lupin would love to get back at. So using Neville to start the class is a perfect opportunity to both raise up Neville, get back at Snape as a teacher ("You see Severus, your assessment of this student was flawed") and get back at Snape in a less mature way (the whole school knows how "Snape" was dressed). While it is using Neville slightly, it is perfect, symettrical, poetic justice in my opinion. Good solid comeuppance. Leon From skelkins at attbi.com Fri Mar 8 11:04:56 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 11:04:56 -0000 Subject: Paranoia and Flying Hedgehogs In-Reply-To: <129.d72c816.29b4ebbe@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36197 Cindy confessed to getting a little paranoid about who might be a DE. Eloise wrote: > That's OK, Cindy. It was precisely for people like you ( and me) > that I proposed the Order of the Flying Hedgehog. As I've said > before, I think paranoia at this point of the game is a reasonable > response. Seriously. I do. If JKR's doing her job, then we should > feel as paranoid as the wizarding community in the face of the next > Voldy War. Hmmmm. Do you think that JKR wants us to be paranoid because we *ought* to be, or because she wants to lure us into error, only to then chastise us for it later? It seems to me that GoF plays some very interesting games with the reader when it comes to suspicion. JKR has always enjoyed the red herring game, of course -- she offers up Snape in the first volume, and Percy and Draco and Ginny and Hagrid in the second, and then Lupin and Crookshanks and the "Grim" in the third -- but in GoF she really goes wild with the aspersion-casting, giving us a truly dizzying selection of suspicious people: Bagman and Crouch, and Karkaroff and Krum, and Moody and Snape (yet again!), and Fudge and... Well. The list just goes on and on, doesn't it. GoF is also, it seems to me, the first of the books which leaves the reader *still* feeling deeply uncertain about many of the characters' allegiances even after finishing the last page and closing the covers. It also gives us far more characters of complicated, divided, or otherwise indeterminate allegiance than we've seen in past volumes. Fudge, Karkaroff, Krum, Bagman, Percy, Crouch, Rita Skeeter...even Snape's allegiance is shown to be far more complicated than had been previously revealed. The extent to which Things Are Not What They Seem, always an important element to the HB books, reaches an almost vertiginous level in GoF: even from the start, we are shown that Portkeys can look like an old boots, that Omniculars distract your attention from what's really happening in the game, that the beautiful Veela have the true faces of monsters, and that a cheerful QWC crowd can quickly become a racist mob. By the time we get to the end of the book, we've had elaborate Polyjuice masquerades, and yet more unregistered animagi, and half-giants passing as merely big-boned, and double- agent Potions Masters, and powerful Ministry officials transformed into bones, and dead characters who turn out to be alive after all...really, it's all a bit overwhelming. Overall, the novel does seem designed to leave the reader with a sense of uneasiness, of foreboding, of indeterminacy. Things aren't nearly as neatly wrapped up as they have been in previous volumes. There are many loose ends, and many characters who seem to be headed straight for some very tough choices. So yes. I do think that the text is encouraging us to feel uncertain and paranoid and suspicious. I also wonder, however, to what extent this might not be a kind of a trap. I find it interesting, for example, that the text seems to place a very strong emphasis on the *perils* of paranoia...while simultaneously encouraging us to view this paranoia as justified. There's a tension there, an uneasy ambivalence. It makes me wonder if we might not start seeing paranoia itself emerging in Book Five to take its place alongside prejudice and envy as one of the Big Spiritual Perils of the Potterverse. > Constant vigilance! Oh, constant vigilance indeed! But let us not forget from whose mouth that sentiment was *really* coming all the way through GoF, shall we? ;-> Meglet wrote, regarding Dumbledore's statement to the tribunal that Snape is "now no more a Death Eater than I am": > I am sure that it is only my horribly twisted and suspicious mind > that has occasionally wondered if that last sentence could possibly > conceal an ironic double meaning. You know, the evil Dumbledore > thing which I mostly resist believing in. Eloise, I hereby nominate Meglet for membership in the Order of the Flying Hedgehog. She has not only confessed to secret thoughts of "Albus Dumbledore Is Ever So Evil;" she even found a nice bit of canon to back it up! Give the lady a...er...well, what precisely *does* one get when one joins the ranks of the OFH, anyway? (Other than a nervous tic, that is.) Meglet also said: > Don't panic. We are very definitely told that Snape was a DE. Indeed he was. But then later on, you see, he re-Kanted. -- Elkins, exiting at a run, while ducking rotten cabbages From adatole at yahoo.com Fri Mar 8 11:20:10 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (adatole) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 11:20:10 -0000 Subject: More Moody Madness Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36198 Something I have never been able to work out about the whole GoF "Crouch is Mad Eye Moody" thing: Why did he help any of the kids at all? I can (barely) understand his helping Harry to get to the end of the TriWizard tournament so that he could touch the portkey and get to Voldemort (which is a huge stretch when there were so many other ways to do this - just take Harry out for icecream in Hogsmead and then portkey him there. Or forget the portkey. Knock him cold and carry him. Whatever.) ahem. My question though, is why Moody worked with Harry so many times on the curses, why he worked with Harry until it was nearly guarenteed that he'd be able to resist Voldemort? And why did he give Neville those books, inspiring the kid to work harder to excel. Why not laugh at the feeble spawn of the parents he had killed, and leave Neville to wallow another year? It seems totally out of character for Crouch, even mascarading as Moody. All Crouch needed was to be mediocre - teach the course book, don't cover extras, keep a low profile. Befriend Harry along the way only as much as it would help keep him in the game. Any thoughts are appreciated. Leon From reepicheepuk at yahoo.co.uk Fri Mar 8 11:15:37 2002 From: reepicheepuk at yahoo.co.uk (reepicheepuk) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 11:15:37 -0000 Subject: Wizard wear and pockets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36199 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" wrote: > This seems to me to imply that the kids normally wear robes when > they're at Hogwarts. [...] I suppose that canon is just confusing >over the issue, and the film doesn't really help. Canon IS confusing over this issue, e.g. isn't it VERY strange they are even described wearing robes for a fast sport like Quidditch? It seems MOST inconvenient. This also seems to suggest that the way the film presents clothing cannot really be accurate. As the whole setting of the plot is decidedly medieval, it seems very questionable that anyone would be permitted to wear any modern muggle clothing at all, even underneath the robes (whatever they may look like). Will be interesting to hear more opinions reepicheep From saramull at optonline.net Fri Mar 8 12:37:32 2002 From: saramull at optonline.net (sarah28962000) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 12:37:32 -0000 Subject: More Moody Madness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36200 adatole wrote: > Something I have never been able to work out about the whole > GoF "Crouch is Mad Eye Moody" thing: > > Why did he help any of the kids at all? This always bothered me, too. I think, aside from being a plot device, Moody/Crouch: 1. Needed to make sure Harry could protect himself from anyone else who might be going to hurt him before V. could get to him (like who? I don't know, Karkaroff? Malfoy?) 2. Crouch is a real ham, and after 12 years of being under house arrest is having a ball playing Moody to the hilt. Every day, he looks down at his little WWMD keychain (What would Moody do) and really does it up right. 3. I believe he is really enjoying bouncing Malfoy, tortureing Snape, etc., and not just pretending. After all, he is loyal to V. but has some real mixed emotions toward the other DE's. 4. Perhaps if you Polyjuice into someone for too long their original personality starts to rub off on you?? After so many months Crouch was at least in some ways really turing into Moody. 5. Don't forget, Crouch is really, really insane. 6."Oft evil will evil mar" or something like that. Also, JKR seems to enjoy setting up father figures for poor Harry and then snatching them away, if they're not werewolves or wanted murderers then they're servents of Voldemort & so on ... Sarah From thelovemutt at aol.com Fri Mar 8 12:44:45 2002 From: thelovemutt at aol.com (thelovemutt at aol.com) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 07:44:45 EST Subject: Neville and Puffskeins Message-ID: <116.d7de711.29ba0c3d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36201 Susanne quoted Grey Wolf, > > Ron used to have one, and Fred used it for Quidditch practice. > > Like, as in hitting it around instead of a bludger? > That *would* be pretty cruel! It might be a very hardy little animal, and we don't know that Fred and George are the reason Ron no longer has it. It doesn't have any objection to being thown around, it might have thought the Quidditch pratice was fun. I have a dog, a Rotti, and a lot of people who are use to smaller more fragile dogs are shocked when they see me wrestling with him because they expect him to be hurt, but he's actually enjoying it. They probabbly didn't mean to hurt the puffskein. > > I am very protective of Neville, he's one of my most beloved > > characters and I hate that the trio leaves him out all the time and > > when McG was so mean to him about the passwords I wanted to shake > > her. Has anybody ever considered that there may be a reason for Neville being such a klutz with magic? Perhaps he was there when his parrents were tortured, so they put a memory charm on him so he wouldn't have to live with it. Bertha Jorkins was pretty screwed up after having memory charms put on her. "Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." - Inigo, The Princess Bride ~*thelovemutt*~ www.geocities.com/thelovemutt/index.html (my slash) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri Mar 8 13:09:06 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 13:09:06 -0000 Subject: Neville and the Canary Creams In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36202 Elkins wrote: > And Neville would seem to feel much the same way. When Fred tells > Hermione that "it's the custard creams you've got to watch--" while > Neville has just bit into one of the custard creams, he immediately > chokes and spits it out. To my mind, that indicates quite clearly > that whatever the twins have done to the sweets, he *really* wants > absolutely nothing to do with it. I don't remember the incident terribly clearly, but we have to consider that Neville's choking and spitting are, in fact, overacting to enter into the spirit of the joke. > > Yes. All of my buffoonery over his backstory aside, I, too, love > Neville. I was a weird little semi-autistic space-cadet of a child > myself, and so I tend to identify very deeply with him. Semi-autistic? You know yourself best, of course, and I know little of autism, but Neville? Forgetful, clumsy, possibly disorganised, but (even semi-) autistic? > > I'll even let you in on a little secret here. I thought that Lupin's > oh-so-blatant "let's bolster Neville's confidence" was kind of > condescending too, to tell you the truth. And you *know* how much I > adore Lupin! Surely it had to be blatant, because Snape was blatant. Lupin's remarks, while serving the function of bolstering Neville's confidence, were primarily a rebuke to Snape, which therefore had to be administered before the same people who were witnesses to Snape's remarks. As a rebuke, it is excellent (despite Lupin's presumed personal animus toward Snape) because he contradicts and presents the alternative without descending to telling Snape he ought not to behave like that - that is left implied, for Snape to put on the cap if he thinks it fits. David From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Fri Mar 8 13:11:10 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 05:11:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Flamel on the Net / Fiftypence shape Message-ID: <20020308131110.40692.qmail@web21110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36203 Finally, I have the time to re-re-re-re...reread Harry Potter. Well, of course I again came across the trio's search for Flamel. My question is: if there is a wizarding equivalent of internet, how could the search for Nicolas Flamel be that difficult? Hmm... well, let's say it doesn't exist yet in book 1 (don't think so, though), Hermione, who got home for the holidays, could try searching 'Nicolas Flamel' on the muggle internet and will at least get the information that he is the maker of the Philosopher's Stone (dunno about info on his work with Dumbledore). Well...? I just want this cleared up: what's the shape of a 50-pence coin for it to be thought of as weird by Ron? If it is polygonal, and wizard coins are round (we don't actually know, do we? the movie makes it round), then fine, weird it is. But if it is round, then it's a mistake on the movie's part to make the wizard coins round too. So... is fiftypence round or what? (I'm too lazy to look it up in the net.) -Ron Yu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From mercia at ireland.com Fri Mar 8 13:20:45 2002 From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 13:20:45 -0000 Subject: Paranoia and Flying Hedgehogs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36204 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote:> > Meglet wrote, regarding Dumbledore's statement to the tribunal that > Snape is "now no more a Death Eater than I am": > > > I am sure that it is only my horribly twisted and suspicious mind > > that has occasionally wondered if that last sentence could possibly > > conceal an ironic double meaning. You know, the evil Dumbledore > > thing which I mostly resist believing in. > > Eloise, I hereby nominate Meglet for membership in the Order of the > Flying Hedgehog. She has not only confessed to secret thoughts > of "Albus Dumbledore Is Ever So Evil;" she even found a nice bit of > canon to back it up! > > Give the lady a...er...well, what precisely *does* one get when one > joins the ranks of the OFH, anyway? (Other than a nervous tic, that > is.) Elkins, I thank you kindly for the above nomination. I should be honoured to receive membership of such a distinguished order. (Er, remind me, just what is the Order of the Flying Hedgehog. I seem to have missed the post explaining it.) Anyway, clearly paranoia rules, OK. I have become increasingly paranoid with every book about whom one can and can't trust and it is good to know I am not alone! And thank you Elkins for the masterly analysis of the very good basis we all have for this paranoia. Though I still look forward to Jo proving us all wrong and pulling off some amazingly unexpected coup by the end of bbok 7. Even with all the wonderfully creative and inventive people on this list and their ever varied speculations on character and plot developments, I am sure she has many tricks up her sleeve that none of us have even dreamed of. At least that is what the experience of reading the first four books has been for me and I have confidence that she will not disappoint us in the next three even if, at present rate of progress, we may be tottering towards dotage before book 7 is actually published. Just a gripe of frustration at the wait! Mercia > > > From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri Mar 8 13:22:44 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 13:22:44 -0000 Subject: Snape's spying career In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36205 Elkins, quoting Dumbledore: > "I have given evidence already on this matter. . . .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." > > I don't think he was lying (although like Athena, I do often find > myself wondering why he chose announce it to the entire room like > that). > My view is that this is because Dumbledore considered that Snape's spying career was, and still is, over. I think I'm in the minority on this one, but I don't believe JKR intends do anything so obvious as send Snape back to Voldemort. That would be up there with Harry being the last descendent of Gryffindor, or Harry's blood vitiating Voldemort's powers, or Pettigrew diving in front of V's last blast at Harry, for clodhopping plot cliche. David, knowing that she won't do anything radical like have Harry end up with Cho. From Joanne0012 at aol.com Fri Mar 8 13:31:00 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 13:31:00 -0000 Subject: Fiftypence shape In-Reply-To: <20020308131110.40692.qmail@web21110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36206 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > > I just want this cleared up: what's the shape of a > 50-pence coin for it to be thought of as weird by Ron? > If it is polygonal, and wizard coins are round (we > don't actually know, do we? the movie makes it round), > then fine, weird it is. But if it is round, then it's > a mistake on the movie's part to make the wizard coins > round too. So... is fiftypence round or what? (I'm too > lazy to look it up in the net.) I've already looked it up, in preparation for a trip to England last year, so here's a picture of British coins. The 50 and 20-pence pieces are indeed multisided and my kids thought they looked weird, too. http://web.dcs.bbk.ac.uk/~phild/pics/coins.gif From drjennyfer at hotmail.com Fri Mar 8 13:30:23 2002 From: drjennyfer at hotmail.com (drjennyfer) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 13:30:23 -0000 Subject: Flamel on the Net / Fiftypence shape In-Reply-To: <20020308131110.40692.qmail@web21110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36207 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > if there is a > wizarding equivalent of internet, how could the search > for Nicolas Flamel be that difficult? Hmm... well, > let's say it doesn't exist yet in book 1 (don't think > so, though), Hermione, who got home for the holidays, > could try searching 'Nicolas Flamel' on the muggle > internet and will at least get the information that he > is the maker of the Philosopher's Stone (dunno about > info on his work with Dumbledore). Well...? > Since the purpose of the MoM is to keep wizard existence from muggles, they are not going to publish information about a magical item such as the Philosopher's Stone on the internet, just about the most accessible place for muggles. > I just want this cleared up: what's the shape of a > 50-pence coin for it to be thought of as weird by Ron? > If it is polygonal, and wizard coins are round (we > don't actually know, do we? the movie makes it round), > then fine, weird it is. But if it is round, then it's > a mistake on the movie's part to make the wizard coins > round too. So... is fiftypence round or what? (I'm too > lazy to look it up in the net.) > > -Ron Yu 50 pences are 7-sided, silver coins. Even if we don't find foreign currency particularly weird, Ron probably would, since I don't think he's ever seen any money other than wizard money. OTH Arthur Weasley has muggle money at the Quidditch World Cup (when paying for the campsite), although he may just have had notes, which are a higher denomination. If muggle money is used by wizards in this situation, surely it is used at other times too. Jen From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri Mar 8 13:54:20 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 13:54:20 -0000 Subject: A Certain Room In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36208 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrwilkens" wrote: > I haven't seen anyone address what room JKR is > referring to in this quote. Any ideas?? > > If you could travel to Hogwarts for an hour, what would you do there? > > Go straight into a certain room, mentioned in book four which has certain magical properties Harry hasn't discovered yet! I have always had difficulty with this quote and the suggestions put forward for what it refers to. The room apparently merits no more than a 'mention' in book 4 (so, surely, not the bathroom, which gets rather more?), but it seems (if she is playing fair) that Harry *might* have had the opportunity to discover its properties (so not the chamberpot room). Then again, it is such a wonderful place that for JKR it trumps Dumbledore's office, the great hall, the kitchens... what sort of properties would do that? Possibilities... The Pensieve room is, in fact, at Hogwarts, and is a sort of central interdimensional Floo chamber. None of the wizards there was physically present, and it offers instant access to the entire wizarding world (including the outposts on Mars and Zorg); It is the prefects' bathroom after all. The mermaid, and the satyr in the other picture Harry didn't see, are the magical sex education professors at Hogwarts. The cupboard where Rita Skeeter interviewed Harry. She left the Quick Quotes Quill there, and JKR wants it so she can finish the series by August. The Owlery. (Seriously) My bet. Even as it is portrayed, I would love to go there. But I don't know what other properties it plausibly might have. David From jloveys at zoom.co.uk Fri Mar 8 13:44:06 2002 From: jloveys at zoom.co.uk (Jedi Knight Jo) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:44:06 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Fiftypence shape References: Message-ID: <000e01c1c6a7$51da8cc0$f53d68d5@jody> No: HPFGUIDX 36209 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > > I just want this cleared up: what's the shape of a > 50-pence coin for it to be thought of as weird by Ron? > If it is polygonal, and wizard coins are round (we > don't actually know, do we? the movie makes it round), > then fine, weird it is. But if it is round, then it's > a mistake on the movie's part to make the wizard coins > round too. So... is fiftypence round or what? (I'm too > lazy to look it up in the net.) >>I've already looked it up, in preparation for a trip to England last year, so here's a picture of British coins. The 50 and 20-pence pieces are indeed multisided and my kids thought they looked weird, too. Joanne<<. Yep. speaking from UK, our fifty pence pieces are seven sided, and so are the twenty pence pieces, which are also smaller. It makes it a LOT easier to have some coins that aren't round in your wallet, along with the others being different sizes and having different textured edges. I went to America last year and found myself getting confused sometimes because nickels and quarters are almost the same size and feel the same in your pocket. However, I'm sure I've seen Knuts somewhere portrayed as being a weird shape like a triangle with the corners cut off. I can't remember whether it was in some of the merchandising or in the film itself, but I know that I've seen it somewhere (even if it's not canonically the case ;)). Although, if my memory is correct (which is entirely unlikely but still possible ;)), then the fifty pence shape shouldn't be that odd. Maybe it was the fact of the 'heads and tails' sides with the shapes stamped on the coin that was weird too. Anyone know if wizard money has anything on it if they only have the three types of coins in different colours? --Jo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ***Mod Note: PLEASE direct all further discussion of UK coinage to OT-Chatter.*** From gwynyth at drizzle.com Fri Mar 8 14:49:40 2002 From: gwynyth at drizzle.com (Jenett) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 06:49:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Flamel on the Net / Fiftypence shape In-Reply-To: <20020308131110.40692.qmail@web21110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36210 On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > Finally, I have the time to re-re-re-re...reread Harry > Potter. Well, of course I again came across the trio's > search for Flamel. My question is: if there is a > wizarding equivalent of internet, how could the search > for Nicolas Flamel be that difficult? Hmm... well, > let's say it doesn't exist yet in book 1 (don't think > so, though), Hermione, who got home for the holidays, > could try searching 'Nicolas Flamel' on the muggle > internet and will at least get the information that he > is the maker of the Philosopher's Stone (dunno about > info on his work with Dumbledore). Well...? It's easy to forget how rapid change has been in regard to the Internet. Depends, I think, on exactly when you consider book 1 to be set. If you go with the Lexicon's arguments which set book one in 1991-1992 (which I find quite persuasive), then it is *extremely* unliklely that Hermione would have had access to the Internet, or that, in fact, much information would be easy to find. There's a couple of reasons for this. The first major one is that until relatively recently, Britain was well behind the US when it came to Net access. When I first got on the Net in 1994, I did know a few people in Britain who had net access - but most of them were in University, where they were making use of a limited number of computers. (And note: that's 3 years after the time we're talking about) Net access through dial-up modem at that time involved per-hour charges, generally, so the only people who were on for hours at a time were people who had access through school. This stopped being quite such an issue a year or two later - but it's still only pretty recent (last 2 years, if I remember correctly) that the flat-rate "Pay $20 a month for unlimited Net access" agreements have been readily available in England to your average user. I just did a little hunting: in 2000, only 1 in 3 households in the UK were apparently connected to the 'Net according to a poll I came across. Just consider how much lower that would have been in 1991. Another study I came across says that in 1998, only 34% of UK households had a computer. Again, that's obviously going to limit how many people have home net access. The second major issue is that while the basic underpinnings of the Web were in existence in 91, it was really quite primitive indeed. I got on the Web while it was still a big deal that webpages had backgrounds rather than light gray (again, that was fall 94'). There were *many* fewer pages out there, Yahoo! was only barely beginning to get going (they were founded in January 1994), and a lot of the other services (gopher, ftp) were a lot more complex to use, and not centrally indexed very well. A lot of this, again, was because there weren't free hosting services, and most ISP accounts didn't start including web space until a bit later - so what you had, again, were academicly hosted websites and some commercial ones. So, you have Hermione, who probably *does* know how to use a computer, if she went to a school that had one or two (my elementary schools did and we learned basic word processing and some educational games and some basic programming). But for her to be on the 'Net, she'd have had to convince her parents to invest in a suitable computer (*not* cheap at that time.) and that this was a worthwhile thing to do (something I think would be hard to convince parents of at that time since the situation regarding amount of data available/benefits for learning didn't really exist) and then figure out how to access the information without any of the highly sophisticated tools we have access to now, and while being quite aware that every minute she took to figure this out was costing her parents a fair bit of money. I do know some people in the US who were online not much after early 1992 - but even then, they were pretty few and far between, and I mostly know them because I've tended to run in computer geek circles. Even among my friends, the people who were online that early in the US are pretty rare. I think it's highly unlikely Hermione was on the Net (if her parents had been engineers or computer science folks or something, I'd consider it at least potentially more likely. But they're not.) And, along with "Well, couldn't she have looked it up in the library?" - computerised library catalogs were only barely beginning to be in use around this time, and were still pretty primitive in a lot of ways. And of course, if the book is called something like "Famous Alchemists" but the computer catalog record doesn't mention Flamel by name, that's not going to help. Now, she might have checked an encyclopedia or something - but we don't know how much access she might have had to a local library while home on vacation. (As a note: I just checked the copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica at work - I work in a US high school library - and Flamel isn't listed) While Hermione's quite bright and good at research, I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't know at the time about other potential resources (biographical dictionaries and such) or whether a local small library in England would have them. (A lot of those sets of things are *expensive*) As a note: I just checked all our likely resources: Flamel isn't mentioned in any of our suitable biography resources, *or* in the articles on alchemy in the things like "Encyclopedia of the Renaissance", nor is the philosopher's stone included in either of the two specialised resources I checked. We've got excellent resources for a high school library, and I'd guess that our resources are slightly more likely to focus on Renaissance science/thought than your average library (the students here have a major project involving bits of that subject area) so I wouldn't be at all suprised if a public library serving a general population that wasn't a major library (like in a large city or even a large town) didn't have them either. Now, as a comparison, I just typed 'Flamel' into the online Britannica version (which we have access to as a school), and he turns up with a couple of lines mention in the section on "Latin Alchemy" The philosopher's stone is mentioned in the sections on "Alchemy" and "Christian Myth and Legend." -Jenett, idly contemplating just how fast access to information and ease of research has gotten. From jloveys at zoom.co.uk Fri Mar 8 14:27:10 2002 From: jloveys at zoom.co.uk (Jedi Knight Jo) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:27:10 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A Certain Room References: Message-ID: <001601c1c6ad$560514e0$f53d68d5@jody> No: HPFGUIDX 36211 >>The cupboard where Rita Skeeter interviewed Harry. She left the Quick Quotes Quill there, and JKR wants it so she can finish the series by August. David<< I thought maybe this one too, but not the same reasons. I wondered about the room where they weighed the wands for the tournament, then started thinking about this room. Maybe it does some kind of TARDIS like thing and becomes huge on certain days or nights of the year when it serves a particular purpose. ;) --Jo (who remembers sending this as an add-on to another message but then it never was on the message before :-S) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From magicalme at comcast.net Fri Mar 8 16:16:28 2002 From: magicalme at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 16:16:28 -0000 Subject: The Gleam & the Hiss Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36212 A few of us, just one or two maybe, have theorized that Dumbledore's Gleam means he has seen some fatal weakness in Voldemort's rebirth strategy. Eh, maybe. But if that is so, then how can Crouch/Moody's behavior be explained? Crouch/Moody kidnaps Harry to his office. At this point, Dumbledore suspects something is wrong, but Crouch/Moody doesn't know that. Crouch/Moody questions Harry. We get to the part about Wormtail taking Harry's blood: ********* "What did the Dark Lord take from you?" said Moody. "Blood," said Harry, raising his arm. His sleeve was ripped where where Wormtail's dagger had torn it. Moody let out his breath in a long, low hiss. "And the Death Eaters? They returned?" ********** Apparently, Crouch/Moody attaches some significance to the use of Harry's blood. I think it's reasonable to conclude that Moody does not believe the use of Harry's blood is Voldemort's fatal error. If Crouch/Moody really believed that, I have trouble understanding why he proceeds with the plan to kill Harry. Wouldn't it make more sense for Crouch/Moody to abandon the plan and simply explain away his kidnapping of Harry? Why kill Harry if Crouch/Moody knows that Voldemort has made a fatal error? From Crouch/Moody's POV, it might make some sense to just take Harry to the hospital wing and forget the whole thing, rather than risk his life in service to Voldemort- The-Forgetful. That means Crouch/Moody (and by extension, Voldemort) believes that using Harry's blood is not a fatal error for the Dark Side. Why would Crouch/Moody and Voldemort, both smart, talented, experienced Dark Wizards come to the exact opposite conclusion as Dumbledore? I think there might be a parallel between the Priori Incantantem plot element and the Harry's blood plot element. In the Priori Incantantem sequence, Dumbledore was aware of a critical fact that Voldemort did not know -- that Harry's wand shared a core with Voldemort's. So if Crouch/Moody still thinks Voldemort is invincible and deserving of Crouch/Moody's loyalty, what is it that Dumbledore knows that Voldemort doesn't know? There are probably lots of possibilities, but the only one that comes to mind is Trelawney's prediction. That said, I'm still unsure what this prediction might be. Am I way off base here? Cindy (who figures we haven't done "Gleam" in a while and so will bravely raise the issue again) From kerelsen at quik.com Fri Mar 8 15:54:14 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:54:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] More Moody Madness References: Message-ID: <003501c1c6b9$7fffbb40$1721b0d8@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 36213 > Something I have never been able to work out about the whole > GoF "Crouch is Mad Eye Moody" thing: It crossed my mind that if one remains in anothers shape too long, one starts to take on aspects of that person's personality... sort of like the risk that staying in one's animagus shape for too long might make one's human self become more like the animal... (which might explain some things about Sirius, perhaps!) So maybe Barty Crouch was absorbing some of Moody's traits... Or maybe I'm too sleep deprived to make sense of anything. :) Bernadette From ftah3 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 8 19:29:24 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 19:29:24 -0000 Subject: The Gleam & the Hiss In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36214 cindysphynx wrote: > A few of us, just one or two maybe, LOL. One or two? :P Cindysphynx continues: > have theorized that Dumbledore's > Gleam means he has seen some fatal weakness in Voldemort's rebirth > strategy. Eh, maybe. > > But if that is so, then how can Crouch/Moody's behavior be > explained? > Crouch/Moody questions Harry. We get to the part about Wormtail > taking Harry's blood: > > ********* > > "What did the Dark Lord take from you?" said Moody. > > "Blood," said Harry, raising his arm. His sleeve was ripped where > where Wormtail's dagger had torn it. > > Moody let out his breath in a long, low hiss. "And the Death > Eaters? They returned?" > > ********** > > Apparently, Crouch/Moody attaches some significance to the use of > Harry's blood. Agreed, which would also align with the fact that Dumbledore might see something significant there, as well. Cindysphynx again: > That means Crouch/Moody (and by extension, Voldemort) believes that > using Harry's blood is not a fatal error for the Dark Side. Why > would Crouch/Moody and Voldemort, both smart, talented, experienced > Dark Wizards come to the exact opposite conclusion as Dumbledore? I don't necessarily see it this way. During a discussion of why Avada Kedavra is categorized as an Unforgiveable spell, I did a horrible job of postulating that it might not be only the outward effects of the spell that make it Unforgivable, but also the effects it has on the user. I was trying to draw a parallel between the fact that Voldemort can be presumed to have used the spell a lot, and the fact that he turned into a not-quite-normally-mortal physically mangled and psychotic evil force. I was playing with the philosophy that doing evil not only has negative effects on others, but also on the self. The reason I bring that up: Similarly, using Harry's blood. Voldemort uses Harry's blood to regenerate, and one of the side effects of that is that Voldemort has greater power over Harry ~ i.e. the Mother-Love in Harry's skin no longer repels Voldemort. So it was important to use Harry's blood because it allows Voldemort to be less vulnerable against the one who has foiled him from birth. So this is a boon, to both Voldemort and Crouch/Moody. I don't think this rules out a down-side, though. Many elements of the graveyard scene emphasize a connection between Harry & Voldemort ~ the sharing of blood, new capability for direct tactile access, the meeting of the wands. The power inherent in a variety of wizard connections crops up elsewhere in the series ~ the Mother-Love thing, the concept that Rat-man Pettigrew is now somehow bound to Harry because Harry saved his life...etc. In all cases but one, the possibilities inherent in such connections are never stated in detail before we see their effects: Blood-sharing: We are told that Voldy needs Harry's blood (at least, the blood of an enemy) to regenerate. This happens. Blood-sharing, part 2: after the fact, Voldy enlightens Harry as to the fact that he can now touch Harry due to using Harry's blood to regenerate (at least, I recall that direct connection being made; correct me if I'm wrong). Wands w/ the same core: Ollivander tells Harry that his wand has the same core as Voldemort's. No mention of what may happen because of this. We don't find out until much later the repercussions possible. Mother-Love: we find out that Harry's mom died protecting him. Later, we find out that it had powerful repercussions. Rat-man owes Harry: Dumbledore mentions that saving a wizard's life creates a powerful bond. We've still not seen what this actually means. So, a lot of hints, allusions, or seeming unimportant asides eventually turn out to have surprising and important repercussions. Because of this, I think that Voldemort and Crouch/Moody are certain of how the blood-sharing works to their advantage, and might find it inconceivable that any disadvantage would be significant enough to worry about; and yet Dumbledore would have the opposite opinion ~ he would know the advantages to the bad guys, but will suspect that the advantages to the good guys may outweigh the former. I.e., two very smart men focusing on the possiblities which could benefit them the most. Ehm. If that makes any sense. I guess my main point is that I think there is quite enough foreshadowing to indicate that The Gleam is Dumbledore intuiting a fatal flaw which may or may not have been considered by Voldemort. Mahoney From bonnie at niche-associates.com Fri Mar 8 19:30:19 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 19:30:19 -0000 Subject: Some Sirius Black Questions. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36215 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nyarth_meow" wrote: > Apologies if this has been covered before, but I was wondering if I'm > the only person who thinks Black isn't quite all that he appears? > OK, all I have is gut-feeling and no real evidence, but I'm > interested to know if anyone else has the same? ****Takes deep breath**** Ok, first of all, these and other Sirius issues were hammered out about a month ago: go back and see what you can find during February. But because there are only 38,000 posts for the average newbie to sort through and because the Sirius FAQ isn't up yet, I'll give you a brief summary on what you've asked. > > I just can't help thinking he's too good to be true, and that Harry > trusts him *way* too readily. Within the space of an hour, he goes > from Sirius Black, evil parent-killing traitor, to Sirius Black, can > I move in with you please? > In that space of time, IMHO, Black might have proved his innocence, > but he doesn't give a very good account of himself. He breaks Ron's > leg without remorse, is all set to kill a man in cold blood, and pays > *very* little attention initially to Harry in his obsession with > Wormtail. And why did he slash holes in the Fat Lady? If nothing > else, he's not very stable. No remorse for breaking Ron's leg: He does tell Ron to sit back down and not move so he doesn't further hurt his leg (p.339, Scholastic edition). It's also possible that he wasn't aware or fully aware that Ron's leg was broken until he got to the Shack--Sirius was a dog at the time and not as bright as a human. Sirius wouldn't have seen killing Pettigrew as a cold-blooded act but rather as justice for Pettigrew's betrayal 12 years earlier that resulted in the deaths of James and Lily and 12 muggles. Lupin is just as willing to kill him, too. He probably pays more attention to the Rat than to Harry because that Rat is Sirius's key to freedom--Harry isn't. He slashed holes in the Fat Lady's portrait because she wouldn't let him in to where he knew Pettigrew was. Having lost everything 12 years ago and finally having the chance to get some of it back (his freedom, at least) he wasn't terribly patient with protocols such as passwords. Notice that the Fat Lady was merely terrified, not harmed. He let her get out of the way before he hacked his way through. As for his emotional stability, most folks agree that he's a volatile person to begin with, or at the least he's suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. Notice, however, that in GoF he's a perfectly sane, logical person. > I know Azkaban is not considered good for your mental health, but > there's another pre-Azkaban event that raises questions; > > Did Black really intend to kill Snape when he played that prank on > him? He set him up so he'd come face to face with a werewolf. > Surely he knew this could easily result in serious injury or death? > This is a step beyond the usual schoolboy prank even if they did hate > each other. This prank is central to the Snape vs. Sirius arguments a month ago. (Search the archives for the word "prank" and you'll get a lapful of posts.) People basically came down on one of two sides: Give Sirius a break (he was only a teenager, and teenagers do dumb things) or Sirius went way too far and that's not acceptable. Dumbledore told Harry at the end of "Philosopher's > Stone" that his father saved Snape's life, so he clearly believed > the "prank" could have resulted in his death. How did Black escape > expulsion? An attempt on the life of another student strikes me as > about as serious as it gets, however unpleasant that student might > be. We don't know how Dumbledore reacted to the incident, whether there were punishments doled out or what. Many surmise that Sirius got away with it, and that's one of the reasons Snape hates him. Did Snape do something truly awful to provoke it, or was Black > just not thinking of the consequences? Again, we don't know. Snape and Sirius probably had issues long before the Prank, but whether Sirius was reacting to a specific incident or whether he just took advantage of a prime opportunity to mess with Snape's head (as he probably saw it at the time), we don't know. > > Oh yeah, and I know he can stay inconspicuous by being a dog, but how > do you hide a hippogriff? You fly it down to the tropics and hide it in the lush undergrowth. Or so it would seem. > > -Nyarth (Is more of a cat person ^_^) --Dicentra, also a cat person who's nevertheless very attached to her dog star From ladjables at yahoo.com Fri Mar 8 19:45:05 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 11:45:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Malicious vs. mischievous In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020308194505.60923.qmail@web20402.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36216 Hi Elkins, I was going to wait until you posted your mammoth Percy post before pouncing yet again, but I figured maybe we should just wrap up the discussion so no-one will collapse from sheer exhaustion! I think I understand where you're coming from, but dangit, we really do see the twins differently! --- ssk7882 writes:> > Percy's relationship with the rest of his family has > been in a steady state of decline ever since the > first book, and by the time we reach GoF I see a > great deal of genuine animosity there, a great deal > of anger and bitterness and resentment festering > under the surface of the Weasley family dynamic. > What was once good-natured has by Book Four become > not at all friendly; things that were previously > merely sources of tension have become rather serious > schismatics. I didn't see this as cause for alarm. I thought that this was just a natural progression, that families like the Weasleys all experience this as their kids grow up and have to face a harsh economic reality. Poverty experienced during childhood, and then adulthood, can alter perceptions and thus personalities. I'll get back to this... > I wrote:> > Percy has always been perceived as an insufferable > prig. > Elkins replied: > No, I don't agree that he has. Nor do I see an > indication that Percy's family has always perceived > him as an insufferable prig. Far to the > contrary: Fred and George both evidently value > Percy's company enough to bother bullying him into > spending Christmas with them, rather than with his > Prefect friends. Family or no family, I don't > really think that they would have bothered to do > that if they had really considered him to be an > "insufferable prig." > > Mind you, by the time we reach GoF -- possibly even > by time we've hit PoA -- I think that the Weasleys > for the most part *have* begun to think of Percy as > an insufferable prig. But then, can you really > imagine Fred and George trying to convince Percy to > spend some quality family time with them in PoA? Or > in GoF? My mistake; I meant the twins perceive Percy as insufferable, in the way older siblings are perceived. And I do think F&G would continue to want Percy around; they may consider him a pompous fool, but he's their pompous fool. When it gets right down to it, he's their brother and they love him. I don't think they have ever held his priggishness against him, which is a sign (aha!) that they bear Percy no ill will. I may have to re-read all the books because I did not detect a new hostility towards Percy in GoF. I simply thought that, allowing for increased exposure to the characters, character growth, and life's vicissitudes, the twins' treatment of Percy was more or less typical. Mind you, I am looking forward to OotP, where Voldemert's presence should bring out some very interesting behaviour in the characters. But I guess you could say JKR has laid the groundwork for this in GoF starting with Fudge, so why not Percy and the twins. Moi: > it's his attitude, revealed by his penchant for > bombast, that convinces the twins ol' > Percy needs taking down a peg. And he does! Elkins: > Well, if by "taking Percy down a peg" one means > "making mock of him," then I'd say that this is > precisely the sort of thing that actually > *encourages* him in his penchant for bombast. The > pomposity and the puffing and the self- > aggrandizement all seem to be how Percy responds > to feeling insecure and unhappy. I've never looked at the situation from this angle. I like the idea of the vicious cycle that you speak of, and I do sympathise because I like Percy as well. But I don't think Percy's pomposity is caused by the twin's harrassment; I think it's the other way around! I think Percy's vainglorious nature is just a red flag waving at the twins, making him an irresistible target. No, no, a red balloon to be popped! As soon as he puffs up, the twins ready their pins! That's how I see their relationship. > The relatively content Percy of PS/SS is not nearly > as pompous or as unpleasant as the secretive and > worried adolescent Percy of CoS, who in turn is > *still* more bearable than the utterly stressed-out > NEWT-bound Percy of PoA. By the time > we get to GoF, Percy is feeling genuinely alienated > and unhappy. I think Percy was always pompous, but again, if this change in Percy is true, couldn't this be the result of 1)Percy's own character developing and 2)greater opportunity to observe Percy's character developing? Perhaps Percy's maturing (from 14 to 17?) and therefore increased awareness of his family situation precipitated depression. Following your theory, as he gets older, the more unhappy he is about his situation in life, and hence the more we see of his "puffing". Because of his own mental state the twins could irritate him more, but I don't think they're really the root cause of his deepening misery. Me: > I believe if the twins really were malicious, if they > had really taken their mother's words to heart, > they'd have become saboteurs. Yet in GoF we never > see the twins stealing and altering Percy's homework > or destroying his cauldron reports; instead, they > limit their pranks to childishly bewitching his > badge and sending him dragon dung at work, hardly > spiteful IMO. Elkins: > Well, there are degrees of malice, certainly. In > PoA, the twins do not, it is true, try to sabotage > Percy's schoolwork or (heaven forbid!) his NEWTS. [contrapuntally]: > if someone sent me dragon dung at my brand new desk > job at which I was very eager to make a good > impression, then I think that I would most > *certainly* consider that an act of sabotage! See, for me, how the joke is carried out reveals intent. I had read that bit in GoF to mean that Percy really believed the dragon dung was a sample of fertilizer from Norway, which implied the twins, thinking of Percy, took the time to disguise the trick as an official package, so Percy would NOT get into trouble, rather than out and out just sending a packet of the stuff to leak all over his desk. Again a point in the twins' favour. Elkins: > I tend to think that Percy's coping mechanism isn't > so much his ambition per se as it is his "puffing". Yes, you're right:puffing is Percy's coping mechanism, whereas ambition, as expressed in his grades and other academic achievements, is the motivating force behind creating the tools for social mobility. Elkins: > Hmmm. Perhaps I'm just a bit more willing to > forgive malice than you are? Even people who are on > the whole well-meaning can still act with malice, > and often *do,* particularly when they are angry. > Feeding the Canary Cream to Neville, for example, > may have been a bit unkind, but I don't think that > it was intended that way -- I don't think that it > was intentionally malicious. But I do think that > malice does motivate a number of their pranks -- the > toffee incident with Dudley leaps to mind -- and > that this tendency is particularly evident when it > comes to their harrassment of Percy. How funny! And here I am thinking Elkins just won't give those boys a break! It's not that I'm unwilling to forgive malice; I truly believe that the prank Sirius played on Snape was full of spite, and my love for the twins is nothing compared to my love for Sirius! I also think Snape should get over it, and I say this from a prankee's perspective. I just honestly don't read the twins' pranks as mean-spirited, and I think unintentional malice is oxymoronic-if there's no intent at all, how can there be malintent, a.k.a malice?! But I think I see what you mean, that one can have subconscious ill-will. Even though I cannot reconcile harmful intent with the twins' playfulness, I admit human nature, because of its complexity, always requires us to have various, even contradictory reasons for doing something; it's never just cut and dried. A prank, as a concept, isn't bad. IMO, pranks are necessary. We need to laugh. Pranksters also serve an important social function, and in an old post I described the toffee incident as F&G punishing Dudley for his treatment of Harry. Like moongirlk, I see nothing wrong with the canary cream incident, and I'm very fond of Neville. It is certainly true that pranksters need to know when they have crossed the line, but prankees also need to know when to take a joke. I would even suggest the ability to take a joke(discussed also in my old post as a quality the twins have) indicates great depth of character, and Neville's behaviour is exemplary-he earned even more of my respect for the way he handled that joke. And I have to throw Amy Z in here (well, you know what I mean Amy Z!) on sibling behaviour: >It's not bad on the overall scale of sibling >relations, though I could do without the "dungbrains" >and all that. I grew up thinking that was >perfectly normal sibling behavior until I met >children who actually liked their siblings and whose >parents expected the siblings to treat each other >with respect. I also grew up thinking teasing and insulting were part of normal sibling behaviour, and still do. Why should it mean the Weasleys dislike and disrespect each other? In my reading of the books, (and in my own experience) it actually indicates how close the siblings are. I don't see it as having a corrosive effect on mutual respect and affection at all. I think this is where I sign off on the twins. I can't believe I've spent so much time defending the wretches! Ama __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From saramull at optonline.net Fri Mar 8 18:02:24 2002 From: saramull at optonline.net (sarah28962000) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 18:02:24 -0000 Subject: The Gleam & the Hiss In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36217 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > A few of us, just one or two maybe, have theorized that Dumbledore's > Gleam means he has seen some fatal weakness in Voldemort's rebirth > strategy. Eh, maybe. > I wonder to what extent Harry may be just a pawn in Dumbledore's plans. I'm sure D. does care about him, but if he needs Harry's blood & god knows what else for some desparate scheme to defeat Voldemort, how far would he go? He seems to be all-knowing most of the time, except when it would prevent Harry from facing Voldemort, again and again. Is he deliberately putting the kid in harms way? And I just thought - did he have a hand in Harry's initial confrontation with V.? You would think he would never do such a thing, but if he thought (because of a prediction?) it would save the world from Voldemort would he sacrifice the Potters? Dumbledore studied the 12 uses of dragon's blood, maybe he knows something about Harry's blood that is the only way to destroy You- know-who, and is willing to use it for the greater good. This way we can be paranoid about his intentions without Dumbledore actually being evil (which I doubt). Sarah From siskiou at earthlink.net Fri Mar 8 19:02:46 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 11:02:46 -0800 Subject: Puffskeins was Re: [HPforGrownups] Neville and Puffskeins In-Reply-To: <116.d7de711.29ba0c3d@aol.com> References: <116.d7de711.29ba0c3d@aol.com> Message-ID: <15539268956.20020308110246@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36218 Hi, Friday, March 08, 2002, 4:44:45 AM, thelovemutt wrote: > It might be a very hardy little animal, and we don't know that Fred and > George are the reason Ron no longer has it. It doesn't have any > objection to > being thown around, it might have thought the Quidditch pratice was > fun. I guess we don't really know enough about the animal and how it died to be able to come to any conclusions. When I read that they don't mind being thrown around, I had thought like a ball, not necessarily being hit around. But unless JKR brings it up in more detail in a future book, we'll never know, if and how Fred was involved. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From bonnie at niche-associates.com Fri Mar 8 20:17:25 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 20:17:25 -0000 Subject: The Gleam & the Hiss In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36219 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sarah28962000" wrote: > > > I wonder to what extent Harry may be just a pawn in Dumbledore's > plans. I'm sure D. does care about him, but if he needs Harry's > blood & god knows what else for some desparate scheme to defeat > Voldemort, how far would he go? He seems to be all-knowing most of > the time, except when it would prevent Harry from facing Voldemort, > again and again. Is he deliberately putting the kid in harms way? > And I just thought - did he have a hand in Harry's initial > confrontation with V.? You would think he would never do such a > thing, but if he thought (because of a prediction?) it would save the > world from Voldemort would he sacrifice the Potters? > I'm sold on the theory that Dumbledore arranges Harry's meeting with Voldemort in Book 1, too. He really seems to be manipulating things behind the scenes, ne? For example, there's something fishy about the way Hagrid turned up to collect Harry *before* the authorities arrived (muggle or magic?). They didn't turn up hours and hours later, did they? Canon is not very clear about this, but how much time elapses between the Potters' deaths and Hagrid's arrival? It really can't be very long. Not only that, if Dumbledore sent Hagrid to collect Harry, he knew that Harry had survived the attack. How? And how did Hagrid get there, assuming he can't Apparate. And what method of transportation did he have in mind to get from Godric's Hollow to Surrey? Sirius's motorcycle was a last-minute thing. --Dicentra, who wants to know it ALL right now! From kschaefe at gwu.edu Fri Mar 8 18:01:39 2002 From: kschaefe at gwu.edu (erised_straeh) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 18:01:39 -0000 Subject: Wizard wear and pockets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36220 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "reepicheepuk" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" wrote: > > > This seems to me to imply that the kids normally wear robes when > > they're at Hogwarts. [...] I suppose that canon is just confusing > >over the issue, and the film doesn't really help. > > Canon IS confusing over this issue, e.g. isn't it VERY strange they > are even described wearing robes for a fast sport like Quidditch? It > seems MOST inconvenient. This also seems to suggest that the way the > film presents clothing cannot really be accurate. As the whole setting > of the plot is decidedly medieval, it seems very questionable that > anyone would be permitted to wear any modern muggle clothing at all, > even underneath the robes (whatever they may look like). > Will be interesting to hear more opinions > reepicheep I, too have puzzled over this, not just because of the film. The main reason I first wondered about the attire is simply that I was trying to imagine riding a broomstick in a robe with nothing on underneath. Of course, we now know that they have cushioning charms, so I suppose that that would solve whatever discomfort could come from it. Although still, the idea of even walking around in a robe without pants on . . . what about the cold, the wind, do they have charms for all of these? So the question is, what sort of attire do they wear underneath? It seems to me there is probably a generation gap here. Perhaps there has been a change in robe styles and for that matter perhaps school robes come in different styles as well: over-the-head, zip up, outside pockets, inside pockets, and so on. Older styles, favored more by the older set, are more outfits, sort of complete with undergarments. I confess I got this idea from Maggie Smith's attire in the film -- it looked a lot like a dress, with a petticoat underneath, but I think it makes sense. (Nod to Eloise as I believe she had a similar idea.) However, the younger generations favor muggle clothing or something similar and the robes are something worn because that's the way it's done, pure and simple. After hundreds of years, the wizard world is becoming more and more connected to the Muggle world through marriage, so some things Muggle must be seeping into the culture. I think Harry and his friends and probabaly even his parents generation to some extent walk around in jeans and a T- shirt under their robes and when they're not at school. Regarding Harry, he probably just bought some Muggle clothing for school and doesn't wear it during the summer, not wanting the Dursleys to see it and think, "Hey, the kid's got money." The one thing, though, I still don't get is why the older wizards have so much trouble dressing like Muggles. Their kids seem to know something after all. Even if the parents don't know, they could ask. Of course, Gred and Forge probably get a kick out of watching Dad try and maybe there's something "wrong" with looking too Muggle among the older crowd. This actually brings to mind one of my very, very few gripes with the wizard world: how could they not know anything about the muggle world, e.g. telephones, electricity? Sure they don't use it, but they live among Muggles. They have to interact with them. They need Muggle money sometimes. It's like living in a foreign country and refusing to learn the language. But, that's another issue . . . Anyway, to conclude, my vote is on Muggle clothes for kids, robes are more tradition now than anything else, in a few years they'll just be for sports (uniforms) and dress-up affairs and a few generations down the road, Grandma will be saying with a heavy sigh, "I remember when people wore robes to church." KK From maryblue67 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 8 21:25:37 2002 From: maryblue67 at yahoo.com (Maria) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:25:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Gleam & the Hiss In-Reply-To: <1015617663.437851.20984.m4@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020308212537.39039.qmail@web11101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36221 Cindy suggested: Apparently, Crouch/Moody attaches some significance to the use of Harry's blood. I think it's reasonable to conclude that Moody does not believe the use of Harry's blood is Voldemort's fatal error. If Crouch/Moody really believed that, I have trouble understanding why he proceeds with the plan to kill Harry. Wouldn't it make more sense for Crouch/Moody to abandon the plan and simply explain away his kidnapping of Harry? Why kill Harry if Crouch/Moody knows that Voldemort has made a fatal error? From Crouch/Moody's POV, it might make some sense to just take Harry to the hospital wing and forget the whole thing, rather than risk his life in service to Voldemort- The-Forgetful. That means Crouch/Moody (and by extension, Voldemort) believes that using Harry's blood is not a fatal error for the Dark Side. Why would Crouch/Moody and Voldemort, both smart, talented, experienced Dark Wizards come to the exact opposite conclusion as Dumbledore? Mahoney added: So, a lot of hints, allusions, or seeming unimportant asides eventually turn out to have surprising and important repercussions. Because of this, I think that Voldemort and Crouch/Moody are certain of how the blood-sharing works to their advantage, and might find it inconceivable that any disadvantage would be significant enough to worry about; and yet Dumbledore would have the opposite opinion ~ he would know the advantages to the bad guys, but will suspect that the advantages to the good guys may outweigh the former. I.e., two very smart men focusing on the possiblities which could benefit them the most. Ehm. If that makes any sense. I guess my main point is that I think there is quite enough foreshadowing to indicate that The Gleam is Dumbledore intuiting a fatal flaw which may or may not have been considered by Voldemort. --> I quite agree with Mahoney, in that there must be something that Voldemort hasn't realized. We know that he is a very powerful dark wizard, however he doesn't know everything, and he makes mistakes because of that: he didn't know about the wands, he didn't know the consequences of attacking Harry as a baby, and i guess there will be more that we'll see. Dumbledore, on the other hand, even though he doesn't know everything either, is a very wise, experienced, old wizard, with a lot of knowledge of old, ancient magic, and might have deduced something. Sorry if it seems i repeat the same information, but every time i want to post, i find somebody that had the same exact thoughts who has answered already!! That is the problem with digest, i guess, but otherwise i couldn't handle everything. I guess i trust people too much... i can't accept that Dumbledore, or Sirius or Lupin, would do anything bad... :) Is there any club for those hopeless idealists like me? ===== Maryblue ---------------------------------------------------------- "Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love" - Eistein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From reepicheepuk at yahoo.co.uk Fri Mar 8 20:59:42 2002 From: reepicheepuk at yahoo.co.uk (reepicheepuk) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 20:59:42 -0000 Subject: The Gleam & the Hiss In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36222 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ftah3" wrote: > ...there is quite enough foreshadowing to indicate that The Gleam > is Dumbledore intuiting a fatal flaw which may or may not have been > considered by Voldemort. > But don't you agree that the scene has a rather sinister touch, and that it seem that Dumbledore is doing his best to hide this Gleam from Harry? On the other hand, the idea that Dumbledore is just using Harry for some scheme of his is also not unlikely, and might also explain his attitude. Of course, we all like to see Dumbledore as the absolutely nice guy, and so we'd hate to find any flaw in his character. reepicheep who has the strong suspicion that most things are not what they seem at first glane (surprise!) > From skelkins at attbi.com Fri Mar 8 21:17:01 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 21:17:01 -0000 Subject: More Moody Madness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36223 Leon wrote: > My question though, is why Moody worked with Harry so many times on > the curses, why he worked with Harry until it was nearly guarenteed > that he'd be able to resist Voldemort? Well. For one thing, why on earth would Crouch think that Harry's resistance to the Imperius Curse would help him against Voldemort? Voldemort planned to *kill* Harry, not to use him as his Imperio'd tool. Crouch makes it perfectly clear that he knew this in his final encounter with Harry, when he talks about how much Voldemort had been looking forward to killing him. It likely didn't even occur to Crouch that Voldemort might decide to entertain himself by trying to use the Imperius Curse on Harry first. It's also quite possible that Crouch didn't really believe that Harry, as preternaturally gifted with resistance as he might be, could possibly succeed in resisting *Lord Voldemort's* Imperius Curse. Canon seems to imply that the power of such curses depends in part on the power of the caster: in his role as Moody, Crouch tells his DADA class that even if they tried in concert to AK him, he would likely not get so much as a "nosebleed;" and judging from its effects on Cedric Diggory, Victor Krum's Cruciatus Curse, while undoubtedly an exceptionally unpleasant experience, nonetheless really didn't seem to be nearly as agonizing an ordeal as Harry, Avery, and Wormtail all found Voldemort's Cruciatus to be. To a fanatically devoted follower like Crouch, it probably seemed inconceivable that Harry's resistance would have stood up for a second against the magical might of the Dark Lord Himself. The last time this subject came up, I offered the following list of possible explanations for Crouch's enthusiasm for teaching resistance against Imperius (section below reprinted from message #34133): ----- Possible Explanations: (a) Crouch is deeply immersed in his role. The real Alastor Moody would have been pleased by Harry's talent and would have gone out of his way to encourage him to develop this skill. Crouch therefore does the same. (b) Little Barty Crouch, the Boo Radley of the wizarding world, *hates* Imperius, having been himself enslaved by it for over a decade. He is thrilled to see *anyone* succeed in fighting it off and takes a grim satisfaction in teaching students to resist it. (c) Crouch doesn't believe for a moment that Harry's talent at resisting the Imperius Curse will do squat for him in the long run. Voldemort plans on *killing* Harry, not controlling him. And even if he does decide to play with the boy for a little while first, it will not matter: Harry's resistance to Imperius will not save him, and may even bring greater glory to the Dark Lord's inevitable victory. So why on earth *not* teach him? And why bother to inform Voldemort of his talent in this arena? (d) Crouch would have been an excellent teacher himself, if only his life had turned out differently; like all good teachers, he takes a genuine and instinctive pleasure in helping students to succeed at difficult tasks. Of these, I prefer (e), all of the above. ----- These days, I still prefer (e), all of the above. > And why did he give Neville those books, inspiring the kid to work > harder to excel. Well, what Crouch tells Harry is that he gave Neville the Water Plants of the Meditteranean book because it included a description of the magical properties of gillyweed. He had assumed that Harry would solicit advice from his friends about how to approach the Second Task, and that Neville would then volunteer that information, enabling Harry to succeed. Yeah, yeah, I know. It's always seemed rather far-fetched to me, too, but that's what Crouch *says.* Personally, though, I've got a sneaking suspicion that while Crouch did indeed give Neville that particular book as a part of his Cunning Plan, he also enjoyed encouraging Neville for many of the same reasons that he enjoyed teaching Harry how to resist the Imperius Curse. He thought that it was what the real Moody would have done. It appealed to his sense of irony. And he just plain liked teaching. If we assume that Crouch Sr.'s ravings in Chapter Twenty-Eight of GoF ("Yes, my son has recently gained twelve O.W.L.s, most satisfactory, yes, thank you, yes, very proud indeed...") are in fact based in past reality -- and I think that this is certainly what the text implies -- then Crouch Jr. would seem to have been himself an *exceptional* student. He also displays throughout the book a strong degree of sensitivity to other people -- how they think, where their weaknesses lie, where they are strong, where they are vulnerable -- although he uses this talent almost wholly for sadistic and manipulative ends. Really, he's a bit like Lupin, isn't he? Like Lupin gone horribly horribly *bad.* My feeling about Crouch is that he was born to teach. It's a terrible pity, really. > Why not laugh at the feeble spawn of the parents he had killed, and > leave Neville to wallow another year? . . . . It seems totally out > of character for Crouch, even mascarading as Moody. Well, it's really hard to say what might or might not have been in character for Crouch, isn't it? We can't even say for sure how much of his behavior in GoF is really him, and how much is just his Moody impersonation. Even at the very end, when he gets an entire chapter- long confession monologue, everything he says is filtered through the coercive and affect-deadening effects of the veritaserum. We can't even say for sure, for example, that Crouch bore any particular animosity against Neville. His treatment of Draco Malfoy certainly implies that he had no difficulties with the notion of punishing children for their parents' sins, but then, from his point of view, Lucius Malfoy had gone *unpunished.* Perhaps he felt no similar rancour against the offspring of the Longbottoms because in his mind, Neville's parents (who aren't dead, by the way -- just mad) already *had* "paid" for their transgressions. Alternatively, he might have taken a genuine interest in Neville *because* of the role he played in the Longbottoms' fate. He's clearly curious about Neville from the very start, and while he is certainly proud of the fact that, unlike the rest of the Death Eaters, he tried to seek Voldemort after his fall, we are given no hint as to what his feelings on the Longbottom Incident itself might be. It's possible that he actually felt remorse. Certainly, there's some evidence to suggest that as a much younger (and not nearly so insane) man, he did. In his appearance in the Pensieve, the dementors seem to be affecting him much more strongly than they are his three co-defendents, and it only took a year of Azkaban to ship him straight to his death-bed. There are a number of reasons that this might have been the case. Remorse is one of the more compelling ones, IMO. > All Crouch needed was to be mediocre - teach the course book, don't > cover extras, keep a low profile. Befriend Harry along the way only > as much as it would help keep him in the game. Yes, but Crouch was just a Great Big Show-off, wasn't he. That *is* one thing that I think we can deduce about his real personality in GoF: that he just *loved* to show off. In Chapter 17, right after Harry's name comes out of the Goblet of Fire, he pushes his way into that little room off the Great Hall and then proceeds to announce his entire plan to everyone present -- just 'cause he *can!* He never misses an opportunity to use a double-edged phrasing that, if only parsed the proper way, would give away his game. He never misses the opportunity to create a theatrical effect (much of that must be Moody, of course, or else Dumbledore would have suspected him much earlier, but I think that all that theatricality suited the real Crouch as well). And in the endgame, he just can't resist falling into that Classic Villain Error of explaining to Harry all about how terribly cunning he has been. Crouch is a show-off. And also, can you imagine how utterly *boring* it must have been for him, all those years? He'd been incarcerated, one way or another, ever since the age of nineteen! And for at least a decade of that, he was not only under mental control, but also indoors and invisible and assumed dead and allowed to talk to no one but...Winky. In short, he'd been living as an Unperson, a person almost utterly without identity. Finally freed from all that, I can't imagine that he could have *borne* to be "mediocre," or to have kept a low profile. I tend to see a lot of Crouch's behavior in GoF as that of a seriously deranged arrested adolescent, Cutting Loose in a big big way. -- Elkins, always happy to talk about Crouch Jr., whom she finds utterly intriguing From fotouba at yahoo.com Fri Mar 8 22:27:30 2002 From: fotouba at yahoo.com (fotouba) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 22:27:30 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldermort wanted to kill especially Harry? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36224 I don't know if it is due to my imagination but I think that in the first book J.K.R. says that Voldie wanted wanted to kill Harry and not his mother. As a matter of fact he offered to her the chance to survive (he would spare her life), as long as she wouldn't stop him from killing Harry. Doesn't that strike to you as little bit weird? Why Harry? What could he possibly have against a little baby? Why was he prepaired to spare Lily's life, when she was more dangerous for him than Harry ever was till then? Shouldn't that tell us something about the <> between Lily and Voldermort? I would be really glad to hear to whatever anyone has to say about this matter. After all, I may be wrong:-), starlight. From moongirlk at yahoo.com Fri Mar 8 22:10:32 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 22:10:32 -0000 Subject: Neville and the Canary Creams In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36225 Elkins, in response to my questions about Neville and the canary creams: > I did see it as rather mean, though, mainly because of the way that > Fred gave Neville reassurance that the custard creams really *were* > safe. I didn't like that much. But they were safe! They weren't stuffed with dragon-peppers (which might possibly be because I just made them up) or anything. They turned him into a canary for a few seconds, but it wasn't harmful. I'll explain my feelings on that below. > > Then, I admit that I'm not a big fan of practical jokes in general, > and of food tampering in particular, so I'm probably biased. That bit in PoA about the Twins > slipping beetles into Bill's soup...ugh. Not funny. Now that I admit to finding truly disgusting (due to a phobia regarding bugs in general and bugs with a hard outer shell in particular). Some guys of my acquaintance have told me that that's not an uncommmon kind of trick among brothers, but all I could think was, well, I couldn't really think at all because I was busy trying to control my gag reflex. I don't think the Canary Creams are the same sort of joke though. I think of them along the same lines as the Muggle disappearing ink trick, where a stain shows up briefly, but goes away leaving no ill effects. > And Neville would seem to feel much the same way. When Fred tells > Hermione that "it's the custard creams you've got to watch--" while > Neville has just bit into one of the custard creams, he immediately > chokes and spits it out. To my mind, that indicates quite clearly > that whatever the twins have done to the sweets, he *really* wants > absolutely nothing to do with it. I thought it was because he was afraid of a prank that involved making the food *icky*. You know, like the bug thing ::shudders::. > And then Fred reassures them that no, really, the custard creams are > fine. Just to trick him into eating one. > > And...oh, I don't know. That really does seem mean to me. Springing > booby-trapped sweets on people isn't my idea of a funny joke to begin > with, admittedly, but I still find that far more acceptable than > reassuring someone who *obviously* finds the idea dismaying and > distasteful that their food has *not* been tampered with -- when in > fact it has. > > I also see a significant difference between simply springing a joke > on someone (when you are, after all, a notorious prankster), and > convincing someone to trust you...only to then spring a joke on him. > The latter is meaner, to my mind, because it forces the victim to > look doubly the fool: first for being trusting enough to swallow the > trick to begin with; and then a second time, for being naive enough > to trust in the prankster's deceitful masquerade of sincerity. I admit I figure as long as the canary creams taste good, and there's no pain in the transfiguration, nor any lingering effects, there's no harm, no foul. But still, I really got the idea that Neville's initial reaction was in fear of some sort of yuck-factor, and that if he was really terribly worried about being pranked or really wanted absolutely nothing to do with the Weasley Wizard Wheezes, he'd have discreetly dropped the cream in the nearest waste can. I get that Neville's forgetful and that he's having a hard time tapping into the talent that I just *know* is in him, but I don't think he's dumb or anything. He's known Fred and George for awhile now. Also, I don't really feel like being the subject of a prank when the prankees are notorious can possibly make one look all that foolish - everyone in that room had probably been had by Fred and George at one point or another, so there's no shame in it. Plus, I like to imagine that while Harry was intent on his own stuff, other students were then rushing the table to try the canary creams themselves. I know I would have wanted to try it. > Yes. All of my buffoonery over his backstory aside, I, too, love > Neville. I was a weird little semi-autistic space-cadet of a child > myself, and so I tend to identify very deeply with him. Hey - high-five! Me too! I had said: > > When I read the bit about the canary cream, I thought it was great > > because while Hermione treats Neville with great kindness, it also > > seems rather condescending to me. > Elkins, my fellow space cadet, responded: > Really? Oh, I'm *so* glad that someone else feels that way! I was > beginning to think that was just me. > > Yes. Hermione is kind to him, and of course he appreciates that, > because really, she's the only one who is, and he doesn't have any > other friends. But at the same time, I do see a certain > condescension in her treatment of Neville. When she approaches him > after Fake Moody's DADA class, for example, that particular way that > she explains to Ron and Harry "Neville," before marching purposefully > towards him -- as if he's just the Cause of the Week, you know, or a > chore that must be taken care of What's more, she's been treating him that way since the very first time we saw her, when she was carting him around searching for his toad. While I think Hermione has grown immensely over the course of the books, and I consider her to be nearly too good as a character, this is one of the flaws I think has stayed with her. She has kind impulses, but they don't always come off properly because of the way she goes about things. I think that's at the heart of the Binky discussion that's been going on. -- I don't think that Neville is at > all obtuse when it comes to interpersonal matters. He's well aware > of the condescension. I totally agree, and that's in part why I feel the way I do about the canary cream. I don't think he took Fred saying it was safe to eat it as meaning that there was no chance that something wacky might happen, but simply that there was nothing harmful about them. And frankly, it really didn't surprise me that > he chose to try to gloss over his distress. I don't know if Neville > would want to confide his family history in *anyone* at this point in > his life, but even he did, I still don't think he'd be willing to > talk to Hermione about it. She's shown him kindness and support, but > not much of the type of respect that inspires personal revelation, > IMO. Again I agree. Neville's really quite tough under all that ineffetuality. He faces "facts" about himself (I put facts in quotes because I don't think all of those facts are going to continue to be true throughout the course of the story), and yet doesn't let his supposed limitations stop him from striving. At this point, though, he doesn't have anyone at Hogwarts he can really trust emotionally. Hermione is the last person I'd confide all my personal tragedies and insecurities in if I were Neville, for fear that she would either try to fix everything or start lecturing me on how to feel, because that's the sort of relationship she's had with him thus far. > I'll even let you in on a little secret here. I thought that Lupin's > oh-so-blatant "let's bolster Neville's confidence" was kind of > condescending too, to tell you the truth. And you *know* how much I > adore Lupin! I can see what you mean here, but I think this was more an opportunistic thing than a thought-out plan to bolster his confidence. The opportunity arose and Lupin seized it. Maybe it would have been better if he hadn't put Neville first in line against the boggart, but it did serve to prove once and for all that Neville is capable even in the face of great fear, so while I conceed that there was a bit of pity there, I think the results were worth it. > I agree that the incident shows Neville in a very good light. It > does show him to be a good sport, and to possess a certain generosity > of spirit. I don't know if I really believe that Neville thought the > joke itself all that "good," though. I didn't get the impression > that he liked the idea of the tampered sweets at *all.* And as he > couldn't himself *see* what he looked like as a canary, it strikes me > as unlikely that the metamorphosis could possibly have been nearly as > amusing for him as it was for everyone else. I don't think it's necessary to see yourself as a canary to get a kick out of the idea that for a moment there you *were* (or looked like, I suppose) a canary. But then, I have to admit I think practical jokes are funny as long as the jokes don't harm or stain or hurt in any way. I used to be slightly paranoid and would assume that a joke was meant to make me look stupid, but as I got to know one of the jokers I'd previously mistrusted and was let in on a prank from the joker's perspective, I came to realize there really was no ill-intent on his part, that he in fact tried to think up pranks that would make the other person laugh. Now I tend to assume this to be true unless proven otherwise, and I even like to be the pranker with a few people. I'm not very good at it (as is evidenced by my miserably failed attempt this morning to prank my supervisor), but I appreciate those who are. > But of course, once one has become the target of a practical joke, > the best course generally is to laugh along with everyone else, even > if one didn't personally find the joke all that amusing. After all, > assuming that there was no malice intended, and nothing at all > personal about the joke, then why put a damper on everyone else's > fun by refusing to laugh along with them? But I went one further? I figured that Neville did assume there was nothing personal and no harm done or intended, and that he actually appreciated the joke. kimberly who likes a good joke, surprise or scare now and then, as long as it doesn't involve bugs From lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 8 23:35:53 2002 From: lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com (Ms Lizard Gizzard) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 15:35:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Why did Voldemort want to kill Harry? + Trelawney In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020308233553.59125.qmail@web13509.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36226 Starlight wrote: > Why Harry? What could he possibly have against a > little baby? Why was he prepaired to spare Lily's > life, when she was more dangerous for him > than Harry ever was till then? Shouldn't that tell > us something about the <> between Lily > and Voldermort? I'm new here, so y'all back me up or shoot me down. In the first book, I believe, Professor Quirrell was boasted that he would hand over to Voldemort "the last Potter." So for whatever unexplained reason, Harry is the last living Potter, and it is this fact that he is a danger to Voldemort. His mother, an Evans and a Muggle-born, would not have any special significance to him. I seriously doubt that he had a "relationship" with Lily (as I have seen suggested on other boards.) I think he was just giving her a way out. Personally, I think he would have killed her after killing Harry. I don't think he had any real use for women. IMHO Now... in book 3, Professor Trelawney goes into a trance and predicts the return of Voldemort. Dumbledore muses that that is perhaps her *second* real prediction. I have to wonder if (again, sorry if this is a repeat on this board.) her *first* real prediction was that a Potter would bring about LV's downfall. Lizgiz __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From jklb66 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 8 23:38:43 2002 From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 23:38:43 -0000 Subject: Wizard wear In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36227 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "erised_straeh" wrote: > So the question is, what sort of attire do they wear underneath? >It seems to me there is probably a generation gap here. [Snip} >Older styles, favored more by the older set, are more outfits. The >wizard world is becoming more and more connected to the > Muggle world through marriage, so some things Muggle must be >seeping into the culture. I think Harry and his friends and >probabaly even his parents generation to some extent walk around in >jeans and a T-shirt under their robes and when they're not at >school. Sounds resonable. For an example of the older generation, just think of the man at the QWC who refused to put on trousers. "'I'm not putting them on,' said old Archie in indignation. 'I like a healthy breeze 'round my privates, thanks.'" Archie is definitely used to wearing wizard robes and nothing else! For the younger set, things are more muddled. Some of the time, I get the impression, that they are NOT wearing many clothes under the robes. In CoS, HRH only concern themselves with getting larger shoes and robes in order to masquerade as Slytherins with Polyjuice Potion. Also, in PS/SS, Ron asks Hermione to leave their train compartment while he and Harry put on their robes. "Would you mind leaving while we change?" HOWEVER, a couple of paragraphs later, it says, "He and Ron took off their jackets and pulled on their long black robes." There is no mention of removing any other clothes. Perhaps they routinely wear other clothes under their robes, or perhaps they just didn't care to strip down on the train! ;) They had just met after all. My impression, the older generations (the faculty, Ron's parents, etc.) JUST wear robes (and undergarments of their choice), but the younger generation wears muggle clothes unless they are at school, and then they *sometimes* wear muggle clothes under their robes. If I were a Hogwarts student, I'd wear muggle clothes under my robe in cold weather, but not warm. And I'd definitely wear pants if playing Quidditch! -Jennifer "At the start-of-term banquet, Harry had gotten the idea that Professor Snape disliked him. By the end of the first Potions lesson, he knew he'd been wrong. Snape didn't dislike Harry--he HATED him." From lipglossusa at yahoo.com Fri Mar 8 23:39:05 2002 From: lipglossusa at yahoo.com (lipglossusa) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 23:39:05 -0000 Subject: The Gleam & the Hiss In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36228 cindy wrote: > A few of us, just one or two maybe, have theorized that Dumbledore's > Gleam means he has seen some fatal weakness in Voldemort's rebirth > strategy. Eh, maybe. > But if that is so, then how can Crouch/Moody's behavior be > explained? snip- > Apparently, Crouch/Moody attaches some significance to the use of > Harry's blood. I think it's reasonable to conclude that Moody does > not believe the use of Harry's blood is Voldemort's fatal error. > That means Crouch/Moody (and by extension, Voldemort) believes that > using Harry's blood is not a fatal error for the Dark Side. Why > would Crouch/Moody and Voldemort, both smart, talented, experienced > Dark Wizards come to the exact opposite conclusion as Dumbledore? > Well, I guess that we would have to figure out what exactly Dumbledore thinks is "in" Harry's blood that might give him an advantage. If we go by the Gleam theory, I would think that Harry saving Pettigew's life in the Shrieking Shack could be one thing that both Voldemort and Moody (presumably) don't know about. Perhaps Pettigrew's debt to Harry is somehow imprinted in Harry's blood. Also, I wouldn't agree that Moody is an experienced enough Dark Wizard to recognize an error-- he's crafty, a great actor, and he's also insane. He spent several years in Azkaban, then smuggled out to spend the last ten under an Imperius curse. He was only 19 before he was imprisoned in Azkaban- that means he was just 2 years out of Hogwarts. I think it probably takes some time fighting in the battle of good and evil to learn the pros and cons of using people's blood in raising the almost-dead. Cindy says, > I think there might be a parallel between the Priori Incantantem > plot element and the Harry's blood plot element. In the Priori > Incantantem sequence, Dumbledore was aware of a critical fact that > Voldemort did not know -- that Harry's wand shared a core with > Voldemort's. So if Crouch/Moody still thinks Voldemort is > invincible and > deserving of Crouch/Moody's loyalty, what is it that Dumbledore > knows that Voldemort doesn't know? There are probably lots of > possibilities, but the only one that comes to mind is Trelawney's > prediction. That said, I'm still unsure what this prediction might > be. I like this theory, but wouldn't Trelawney's first prediction would have already had to have come true for Dumbledore to know that it was a "real" prediction? After all, when Harry tells him about what she said during her trance, Dumbledore has never doubted that Voldemort would come back, and therefore would consider her prediction to have real merit. Marina From skelkins at attbi.com Fri Mar 8 23:43:07 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 23:43:07 -0000 Subject: Neville and the Canary Creams In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36229 David wrote: > I don't remember the incident terribly clearly, but we have to > consider that Neville's choking and spitting are, in fact, > overacting to enter into the spirit of the joke. That's always possible, of course, but it doesn't strike me as terribly consistent with Neville's portrayal elsewhere in the books. I could be failing to remember something, but I can't off-hand think of a single instance where Neville has played the buffoon (on purpose, that is) to entertain others, or been seen joking around with his peers in that particular fashion. Which isn't to say that he never does, of course, nor that it wasn't what he was trying to do in that particular scene. It strikes me as far more likely, though, that the choke and the spit were instinctive "eeewwww, yuck, a tampered sweet that could do God only knows *what* to me" responses. Well. Either way, he was a good sport about it in the end, and that's what counts. As for my "semi-autistic" comment... > Semi-autistic? You know yourself best, of course, and I know > little of autism, but Neville? Forgetful, clumsy, possibly > disorganised, but (even semi-) autistic? That was very poorly phrased on my part, sorry. No, I don't view Neville as an autistic type at all. On the contrary, he strikes me as quite sensitive to other people -- to interpersonal dynamic -- which is most decidedly *not* a characteristic of autism. I myself was (incorrectly, in both my opinion and in those of subsequent doctors) diagnosed as autistic at one point in my childhood, as I had a number of classically autistic traits -- none of which Neville shares. Some of the end results, however, were much the same: the apparent absent-mindedness, and the inability to deal very well with certain subjects in school, and the tendency to make the exact same mistakes (stepping onto that trick stair, for example) over and over and over again, much to the frustration and the bewilderment of others. So while the cause was very different, the end result, in terms of others' perceptions, was quite similar, if not identical. That was all I really meant by that comment. (And although I know that it's my own fault for having brought it up here in the first place, I really do think that if people wish to discuss autism itself any further, we should take that to the OT list.) I wrote: > I'll even let you in on a little secret here. I thought that > Lupin's oh-so-blatant "let's bolster Neville's confidence" was kind > of condescending too, to tell you the truth. David said: > Surely it had to be blatant, because Snape was blatant. Lupin's > remarks, while serving the function of bolstering Neville's > confidence, were primarily a rebuke to Snape, which therefore had > to be administered before the same people who were witnesses to > Snape's remarks. I agree with you both that it served as an excellent rebuke to Snape, and that this was its primary intent. What I was responding to there, however, was mainly how Harry seems to have viewed Lupin's pedagogy in regard to Neville -- and therefore how we as readers tend to think of it. In GoF, when Harry learns of Crouch/Moody's passing on Professor Sprout's praise to Neville, he thinks of it both as "very tactful" and as "something that Professor Lupin would have done." (I'm paraphrasing from memory here, so forgive me if I'm a word or two off.) The implication seems to be that Harry believes Lupin's encouragement of Neville to have been both tactful and wholly positive...and I'm not altogether certain that I believe that it really felt that way to Neville himself -- much in the same way, in fact, that I'm not altogether certain that I believe that Neville's feelings towards Hermione's acts of kindness towards him are utterly positive or without a certain degree of ambivalence. Of course, I could be wrong about that. And I am very likely to be over-identifying, projecting myself rather too much onto the character. But it does strain my suspension of disbelief somewhat to think that Neville does *not* notice the pity and the condescension, or that these things do not, on some level, bother him. -- Elkins From graceofmyheart at hotmail.com Fri Mar 8 20:40:59 2002 From: graceofmyheart at hotmail.com (flower_fairy12) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 20:40:59 -0000 Subject: Snape's spying career In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36230 Maybe Dumbledore *can* be sure that Snape will not go over to the evil side, because when Snape decided to turn against Vodemort, and wanted to be a good guy, Dumbledore wanted to make sure that he was telling the truth so used the Veritaserum on him. This way, he knows he isn't lying and he can trust him. Rosie http://magic-hogwarts.com From Aegeus86 at aol.com Fri Mar 8 22:45:33 2002 From: Aegeus86 at aol.com (Aegeus86 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:45:33 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Gleam & the Hiss Message-ID: <17.247a1a3a.29ba990d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36231 In a message dated 3/8/2002 12:00:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, magicalme at comcast.net writes: > A few of us, just one or two maybe, have theorized that Dumbledore's > Gleam means he has seen some fatal weakness in Voldemort's rebirth > strategy. Eh, maybe. Yeah. The reason the gleam was there (I think) was because Voldemort was able to touch Harry. To be able to do this, Voldemort had to be truly reborn. Voldemort being truly reborn means he is alive again, and can be killed. In other words, Dumbledore is happy beacuse Voldemort can now be killed. ~Aegeus [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From saintbacchus at yahoo.com Fri Mar 8 20:49:31 2002 From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 20:49:31 -0000 Subject: Wizard coinage, blood ties, the puffskein Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36232 Jo wonders: << Maybe it was the fact of the 'heads and tails' sides with the shapes stamped on the coin that was weird too. Anyone know if wizard money has anything on it if they only have the three types of coins in different colours? >> It seems like engraved images are universal in the Muggle world, so I don't see why it wouldn't be in the Wizarding World as well. The big problem I see is how they could limit themselves to six images from a world's worth of wizards. Are Galleons, Sickles and Knuts only UK currency? I don't know if I buy the idea that the WW is so well-connected and has been for such a long time that there are no currency divisions. Whichever is the case, what do you suppose would be on each piece? I'm straining my brain, but I can't think of anyone mentioned who stands out quite enough to be stamped on a coin, nor any particular wizard symbol, nor any particular saying. Maybe every time a new Minister of Magic is appointed, they start minting coins with his face on. Or maybe there are whole series of Sickles with historical figures. Thoughts? Cindy writes: << That means Crouch/Moody (and by extension, Voldemort) believes that using Harry's blood is not a fatal error for the Dark Side. Why would Crouch/Moody and Voldemort, both smart, talented, experienced Dark Wizards come to the exact opposite conclusion as Dumbledore? >> Well, Voldemort is smart, but he's not as old (read: experienced) as Dumbledore. If it weren't for Harry, Voldemort wouldn't have figured out how to get past the protection on the Philosopher's Stone. I also have a feeling that Voldemort doesn't have - for lack of a better word - character. Has anybody seen "The Hustler?" Paul Newman has all the talent he needs to defeat the reigning pool champ, but he's too green - he just doesn't have the mettle to stand up to the older player. It's not until he's had his character thoroughly tested (and he's finally learned a lesson from his hardships) that he can beat Minnesota Fats. For some reason, I don't see Voldemort as learning enough from what he's been through to have the character necessary to defeat Dumbledore. MAHONEY! writes: << I think that Voldemort and Crouch/Moody are certain of how the blood-sharing works to their advantage, and might find it inconceivable that any disadvantage would be significant enough to worry about; and yet Dumbledore would have the opposite opinion ~ he would know the advantages to the bad guys, but will suspect that the advantages to the good guys may outweigh the former. >> I agree. If I were a guy who could drink unicorn blood and escape the fate Hagrid describes, I'd think I were darn near invulnerable, too. I also think that even if Voldemort appeared to be losing, Crouch would be faithful. He has (well, had) the strength of obsession on his side. If Charles Manson could find followers that devoted, so can Lord Voldemort. Susanne writes: << I guess we don't really know enough about the animal and how it died to be able to come to any conclusions. >> You're only assuming it's dead, though. All Ron says is that he doesn't have it anymore because Fred used it for bludger practice. According to the Fantastic Beasts book, they "have no objection to being cuddled or thrown about," so I would assume that what happened is, Fred hit it too far and they couldn't find it. I want a puffskein! --Anna From slinkie at nids.se Fri Mar 8 22:53:25 2002 From: slinkie at nids.se (eledhwen_0) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 22:53:25 -0000 Subject: A Certain Room In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36233 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jrwilkens" wrote: >I haven't seen anyone address what room JKR is > referring to in this quote. Any ideas?? > > If you could travel to Hogwarts for an hour, what would you do there? > > Go straight into a certain room, mentioned in book four which has certain magical properties Harry > hasn't discovered yet! Hi! I belive that the room in question is the one that Dumbledore mentions at the Yule Ball (I think, I don't have the book with me) which makes everyone laugh, since he suggests it can only be reached when you have a very full bladder. I have always felt that there was something very mysterious about this room. Personaly, I wouldn't mind a visit to the prefects bathrom either. From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Mar 8 23:50:10 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 23:50:10 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort want to kill Harry? + Trelawney In-Reply-To: <20020308233553.59125.qmail@web13509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36234 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ms Lizard Gizzard wrote: > In the first book, I believe, Professor Quirrell was > boasted that he would hand over to Voldemort "the last > Potter." So for whatever unexplained reason, Harry is > the last living Potter, and it is this fact that he is > a danger to Voldemort. His mother, an Evans and a > Muggle-born, would not have any special significance > to him. I seriously doubt that he had a > "relationship" with Lily (as I have seen suggested on > other boards.) I think he was just giving her a way > out. > > Personally, I think he would have killed her after > killing Harry. I don't think he had any real use for > women. IMHO This won't work, unfortunately, because it doesn't explain why he wouldn't have killed her first. It's easier that way and the guy doesn't have much remorse. Therefore, we do need a "relationship" with Lily in some form. This has ranged all the way from Lily being Riddle's daughter, grandaughter, cousin, to Lily having saved his life, to TEWWW EWWW TEWWW be TREWWW, which posits horrible things about Lily and Snape, and EWWWWWWer also known as So EWWWWWer it's in the SEWWWWWer, which won the most disgusting Harrry Potter theory award. Just tipe EWWW into the search engine if you're brave enough. > Now... in book 3, Professor Trelawney goes into a > trance and predicts the return of Voldemort. > Dumbledore muses that that is perhaps her *second* > real prediction. I have to wonder if (again, sorry if > this is a repeat on this board.) her *first* real > prediction was that a Potter would bring about LV's > downfall. A perennial favourite theory. I'm a devotee myself of a theory proposed on this board: that Trelawney predicted that the Potter blood would bring about LV's downfall, thus putting a new spin on the gleam of triumph. Whose idea was that, btw? I can't remember, and I don't know what to search for. Eileen From tabouli at unite.com.au Sat Mar 9 00:20:37 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:20:37 +1100 Subject: Flying Hedgehogs, Popping Percy Message-ID: <00c901c1c708$c5c6f220$6322ddcb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 36235 Elkins: > I hereby nominate Meglet for membership in the Order of the Flying Hedgehog. She has not only confessed to secret thoughts of "Albus Dumbledore Is Ever So Evil;" she even found a nice bit of canon to back it up! (...) > Give the lady a...er...well, what precisely *does* one get when one joins the ranks of the OFH, anyway? (Other than a nervous tic, that is.)< Weeeell, we could always stick with tradition and design a badge bearing a flying hedgehog with the following legend encircling it: F.L.Y.I.N.G.H.E.D.G.E.H.O.G. (Fearful League Yabbering "Innocent Narratives Generally Harbour Enemies, Death-eaters, Grim Henchmen Or Gangsters") Then again, we could go to Captain Charis and get her to design a soft toy, perhaps something in a delicate shade of pale pink with the spikes replaced by a shock of long hot pink fur, enhanced by a pair of twinkly silver fairy wings... Ama: > And I do think F&G would continue to want Percy around; they may consider him a pompous fool, but he's their pompous fool. (...) > I don't think Percy's pomposity is caused by the twin's harrassment; I think it's the other way around! I think Percy's vainglorious nature is just a red flag waving at the twins, making him an irresistible target. No, no, a red balloon to be popped! As soon as he puffs up, the twins ready their pins! That's how I see their relationship.< (Tabouli grins appreciatively) Well said, well said. And if, perhaps, some of their pins are a bit sharper that is really called for, that's only age-appropriate, after all. The line between Retribution Mischievious and Retribution Malicious can be blurry, especially for the recipient... Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From porphyria at mindspring.com Sat Mar 9 01:29:46 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 20:29:46 -0500 Subject: Neville and the boggart Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36236 Elkins said: "I'll even let you in on a little secret here. I thought that Lupin's oh-so-blatant "let's bolster Neville's confidence" was kind of condescending too, to tell you the truth." David answered: "Surely it had to be blatant, because Snape was blatant. Lupin's remarks, while serving the function of bolstering Neville's confidence, were primarily a rebuke to Snape, which therefore had to be administered before the same people who were witnesses to Snape's remarks." Elkins replied: "I agree with you both that it served as an excellent rebuke to Snape, and that this was its primary intent. "But it does strain my suspension of disbelief somewhat to think that Neville does *not* notice the pity and the condescension, or that these things do not, on some level, bother him." OK, this is me, Porphyria: Personally I don't see Lupin's handling of the boggart incident to contain even the tiniest bit of pity or condescension towards Neville. David is right in that Lupin had to take a stand after Snape's remark, otherwise he'd be sort of tacitly agreeing with it. But I don't see Lupin as primarily rebuking Snape per se -- OK he *is*, but I don't think you can separate the act of responding to Snape's remark and the act of taking some sort of position regarding Neville. Lupin can either coddle Neville by not forcing him to confront the Boggart if he doesn't want to, and thus implicitly agree with Snape, or he can assume that Neville is competent enough to fire off a good Riddikulus charm. He does the latter, and more. Neville is terrified of the boggart. He gives Lupin a look of "pure terror" as soon as the being is mentioned by name and Lupin ignores Neville's "small sputter of terror" several seconds later. The Lupin *royally* puts Neville on the spot by forcing him to confront the boggart first. Now I'm guessing here, but my conjecture is that going first in a class demonstration is the *second* most terrifying thing in the world for Neville. If not, I bet it's still near the top. Neville quivers and shakes and looks about wildly for help all throughout Lupin's coaching. But when the boggart finally comes out of the closet Neville pulls it off on the first try. He squeaks out a perfectly adequate Riddikulus charm and thus proves that he is up to the task, in spite of his own fears and Snape's low estimation of him. Lupin forces Neville to act braver than he feels. He assumes that Neville is competent and obliges him to act up to that high estimation. He's almost cruel to him in that he unhesitatingly makes the kid sweat, but despite his hardly surpressed smile, he seems to know that Neville will rise to the occasion. To me this is the opposite of condescension; condescension and pity involve *assuming* that a person isn't capable of much; that they are inferior to you. This is what Snape does, not Lupin. Maybe it depends on how you see things personally, but I think this is a brilliant way to handle Neville at this point. The kid *really* is afraid and Lupin teaches him a way to confront his fears -- both through the technique of imagining a specific fear, in this case, in drag, but also by forcing him to realize that he's capable of taking an active stand against his fear of failure and humiliation in general; now Neville knows he can cast a useful charm in front of a whole class and make it look easy. ~~Porphyria, who thinks teaching is very hard and wishes she had Lupin's knack From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Sat Mar 9 01:42:59 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 01:42:59 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and Lily In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36237 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > This won't work, unfortunately, because it doesn't explain why he > wouldn't have killed her first. It's easier that way and the guy > doesn't have much remorse. > > Therefore, we do need a "relationship" with Lily in some form. I have never understood this argument. Whatever Voldemort's motive for telling Lily to stand aside, it lasted about two seconds in the face of her refusal. Either AK takes it out of you enough to want to try to use it sparingly, or he thought 'stand aside' was easier to say, or he wanted her to see her son die - but whatever it was it didn't matter. All the subsequent arguments about Snape's putative bargains or Voldemort's alleged ewwww seem to me to be a very fat pyramid balanced on a very narrow point. Or is this a case of 'JKR wouldn't have written it if it didn't have some significance' - if so, what is the basis for deciding which bits to make significant in interpretation? David From kschaefe at gwu.edu Sat Mar 9 00:31:07 2002 From: kschaefe at gwu.edu (erised_straeh) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 00:31:07 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort want to kill Harry? + Trelawney In-Reply-To: <20020308233553.59125.qmail@web13509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36238 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ms Lizard Gizzard wrote: > Starlight wrote: > > > Why Harry? What could he possibly have against a > > little baby? Why was he prepaired to spare Lily's > > life, when she was more dangerous for him > > than Harry ever was till then? Shouldn't that tell > > us something about the <> between Lily > > > and Voldermort? > > > I'm new here, so y'all back me up or shoot me down. > > In the first book, I believe, Professor Quirrell was > boasted that he would hand over to Voldemort "the last > Potter." Welcome to the list, Lizgiz! I'm fairly new too, but so far I've really enjoyed this list and hope you do too. Now, I don't remember that part about "the last Potter," so I can't comment, but I do think this Lily question is an interesting one. I have often dismissed the idea of a relationship between Lily and LV, but Voldemort does strike me as a take no prisoners kind of guy. Plus, now that I think about it, the way he talks to her in Harry's memories sounds a little different than I would expect. There seems to be some familiarity there. I don't have PoA with me, but I think he says something like "Stand aside girl. Don't be a fool." He's definitely giving her a friendly out there and I don't know why he would do that, unless he honestly didn't want to kill her if he didn't have to. If he didn't care two wits about her, wouldn't he more likely say "You little fool, do you think a little witch like yourself can stand up to me? (cackle, cackle, cackle)"? Since Lily was Muggle-born, it does seem unlikely Voldemort has any blood relationship to her unless Tom Riddle had a brother or sister we don't know about who was not at all magical and so lived as a Muggle. (Aside: Would a non-magical child with only half-wizard blood be called a squib? Anyone?) Another option is that Lily was his daughter and he gave her up or didn't know about her or she was taken from him and raised by Muggle parents . . . ooooh, killing his own daughter and grandchild. That's very bad! That's also a little too Star Wars for me. Still, it is a very interesting thought and I'll have to think more on it now. > Now... in book 3, Professor Trelawney goes into a > trance and predicts the return of Voldemort. > Dumbledore muses that that is perhaps her *second* > real prediction. I have to wonder if (again, sorry if > this is a repeat on this board.) her *first* real > prediction was that a Potter would bring about LV's > downfall. > > Lizgiz No arguments here. The first prediction, I believe, is the frontrunner among opinions as to how LV knows that Harry is a threat. KK (who already thinks far too much and far too often about Harry, but will still think some more on this) From rshuson80 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 8 23:41:17 2002 From: rshuson80 at yahoo.com (nyarth_meow) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 23:41:17 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore wonderings (WAS The Gleam and the Hiss) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36239 Reepicheep (good name!) says: >the idea that Dumbledore is just using > Harry for some scheme of his is also not unlikely, and might also > explain his attitude. Of course, we all like to see Dumbledore as the > absolutely nice guy, and so we'd hate to find any flaw in his > character. I say: I think Dumbledore has his own agenda, though it's probably not an evil one. He is forever acting above the Ministry's head. He's also always making decisions without explaining himself to the people involved. Dicentra said: >For example, there's something fishy about the way Hagrid turned up >to collect Harry *before* the authorities arrived (muggle or magic?). I say: True, and Dumbledore then makes the decision about placing Harry with the Dursleys. Does the Wizarding World have no equivalent of Social Services, who would be responsible for the fate of an orphaned child? Dumbledore's decision seems to outweigh even the Sirius Black's. In PoA we learn he was present too, and begged Hagrid to leave Harry with him. If wizard Godfathers are like muggle Godfathers, then Black would technically be the legal Guardian. Obviously, Dumbledore had his reasons for placing Harry with his blood relations, but he doesn't seem to have explained this to Black, who invited Harry to live with him at the first possible opportunity. Dumbledore also employs his *own* spies. We learn in PoA that Dumbledore had some useful spies on the Dark side. We assume one of these was Snape. Snape seems to have been Dumbledore's spy, not the Ministry's. The Ministry, it seems, tried him as a Death Eater, and Dumbledore had to testify to get him cleared. Another wonderment, not really relevant to the above: If Dumbledore's word carried enough weight to get Snape cleared, couldn't he now testify to clear Black's name too? Admittedly, we don't know what other evidence was raised at Snape's trial, but a large number of witnesses (Lupin, Harry, Hermione, Ron, Dumbledore, even Snape, if someone held a gun to his head) could testify they saw Pettigrew alive, and that he was an animagus. -Nyarth From jklb66 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 9 02:01:13 2002 From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 02:01:13 -0000 Subject: Portkeys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36240 Why did Moody/Crouch make the Triwizard cup the portkey instead of something easier to get (and earlier in the year)? --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "linda_mccabe" wrote: > The second reason is more character-oriented and does not deal with > the finer points of how one should diagram a plot for the most > effect. This has to do with Voldemort's ego. He wanted to have as > much bang for his buck in his resurrection. He lives the > Machiavellian rule that "it is more secure to be feared than to be > loved." He wanted everyone to be in total fear and have a greater > level of fear than they had in 1981 when he fell. To do that, he > devised the scheme to have all eyes on Harry Potter again. Being > the leading contestant (and sentimental favorite) going into the > final would make all eyes in the wizarding world be on Harry once > again. If instead of cheering Harry's victory, they found out that > Harry was now dead and Voldemort had risen once again - Voila! No > one could escape the emotion of FEAR. > He had waited for thirteen years without a true body, a few months > here or there wouldn't make that much of a difference to him. Way back on the list (Sorry, couldn't find it!) someone had an excellent answer to this very question. His/Her theory (feel free to jump up and take credit) was that after Voldemort tortured & killed Harry, reestablishing himself as the biggest and baddest Dark Lord ever to swill down a venom cocktail, he and the DE's would use the portkey to make the return journey to Hogwarts. The stands around the maze were packed with students & faculty of Hogwarts, Beauxbatons, and Durmstrang, not to mention MoM representatives, media, etc. Voldemort and the DE's would AK people left and right and thus announce their return with the maximum impact. This theory explains 2 things: why was the Harry kidnapping planned for the last night of the tournament, and why the portkey worked to return Harry to Hogwarts. -Jennifer (who has recently discovered how much fun reading fanfic is!) From saintbacchus at yahoo.com Sat Mar 9 00:14:17 2002 From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 00:14:17 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort want to kill Harry? + Trelawney + Neville In-Reply-To: <20020308233553.59125.qmail@web13509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36241 Lizgiz writes: > Now... in book 3, Professor Trelawney goes into a > trance and predicts the return of Voldemort. > Dumbledore muses that that is perhaps her *second* > real prediction. I have to wonder if (again, sorry if > this is a repeat on this board.) her *first* real > prediction was that a Potter would bring about LV's > downfall. Oh, joy of joys - I can quote you without having to delete all the angle brackets! *dances* All right, down to business. This is a great theory, because it explains why all the other Potters are dead when they should by rights be alive (wizard lifespan and all) AND it has a delightful touch of the classic Greek self-fulfilling prophecy. "What's really going to bend your noodle later," says Trelawney, "is whether or not you would have been defeated by Harry if I hadn't said anything!" ^_^ I don't think that Trelawney's first prediction necessarily has to have already come true for Dumbledore to make his assessment; the genuine trance state that she was in convinced Harry that she wasn't faking, and presumably would have convinced Dumbledore as well. What I want to know is, how did Voldemort know about a prediction made by a Hogwarts staffer? Spies? Also, why didn't Harry bother to ask what the first prediction was? (One possibility is that the remark was just a facetious comment on Trelawney's lack of skillz, and since Harry can hear Dumbledore's tone of voice, he'd know that, while we all sit out here and debate. *shrug*) --Anna PS: As long as we're still talking about the canary creams, I think the line about him choking was just a bit of slapstick from Rowling. Neville is very good- humored. That's why I love him, the big puddin'! From frodoyoda at aol.com Sat Mar 9 02:00:49 2002 From: frodoyoda at aol.com (frodoyoda_2000) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 02:00:49 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort want to kill Harry? + Trelawney In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36242 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ms Lizard Gizzard wrote: > > Personally, I think he would have killed her after > > killing Harry. I don't think he had any real use for > > women. IMHO > > This won't work, unfortunately, because it doesn't explain why he > wouldn't have killed her first. It's easier that way and the guy > doesn't have much remorse. Personally, I've always thought that it was Voldemort's intent to let Lily live just long enough to see her only son murdered, and then to kill her as well. It seems to me that that kind of sadistic thing would be amusing to him. When she was resistant, i guess he just got bored with the games, and killed her. But then, that wouldn't be a very interesting plot device, now would it? So maybe not... Molly, shuddering in the face of Voldie's abject cruelty From porphyria at mindspring.com Sat Mar 9 02:14:45 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 21:14:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neville and the boggart Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36243 Erm, please forgive me for posting a brief addendum to my last post, but I hadn't quite reviewed to the end of the boggart scene when I hit send and I wanted to add a few more words. Elkins' original concern, if I understood her correctly, was whether Neville himself feels *condescended to*. I was arguing that Lupin's handling of the boggart class was not technically condescending according to my definition. But I'd forgotten that we see more of Neville after his initial performance in the class, and I think this is useful. Lupin makes every student (except H&H) confront the boggart in turn and then returns to Neville: "Forward, Neville, and finish him off!" said Lupin as the boggart landed on the floor as a cockroach. Crack! Snape was back. This time Neville charged forward looking determined. "Riddikulus!" he shouted, and they had a split second's view of Snape in his lacy dress before Neville let out a great "Ha!" of laughter, and the boggart exploded, burst into a thousand tiny wisps of smoke, and was gone. Well, by now he's "looking determined" and he dispatches the boggart with quite understandable glee at the site of Snape in lace. So it seems at least that Neville is relishing the moment, and that he has overcome his initial sense of fear. I don't think this is the reaction of someone who feels that they are being pitied; I don't think Neville is second guessing Lupin's treatment of him at all at this point. Whether he ponders it at length in private is anyone's guess, but Neville strikes me as the type who would appreciate a little positive reinforcement, and Lupin seems to realize this. Remember Harry is the one who feels condescended to in this class. He thinks that Lupin has skipped him because he's weak. ("Why? Was it because he'd seen Harry collapse on the train, and thought he wasn't up to much? Had he thought Harry would pass out again?") Granted, Harry's assessment of this class was what was initially in question, but I'm inclined to agree with him here. Skipping over someone would certainly appear more condescending than forcing them into it. It implies you don't think they can handle it. Again, if Lupin had just out of the blue decided that Neville could have used a confidence boost then it might have looked condescending, but he was planning on teaching a class about boggarts in the first place, and Snape really forced his hand. So it's all Snape's fault in the end. ;-) ~~Porphyria, who might get back to work now From huntleyl at mssm.org Sat Mar 9 02:10:48 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 21:10:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Why did Voldemort want to kill Harry? + Trelawney References: Message-ID: <009c01c1c70f$a13c3940$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 36244 Molly writes: >Personally, I've always thought that it was Voldemort's intent to let >Lily live just long enough to see her only son murdered, and then to >kill her as well. It seems to me that that kind of sadistic thing >would be amusing to him. When she was resistant, I guess he just got >bored with the games, and killed her. But then, that wouldn't be a very interesting plot >device, now would it? So maybe not... Well, this seems to be at odds with the idea that Harry's protection was the result of his mother *sacrificing* her life for him. If V was going to kill her anyway, she wouldn't have been sacrificing anything, you see? Yes, I know, if he was going to kill her anyway she wouldn't *know* it, but I don't think the magic would accept that as sacrifice enough, it had to be a *real* sacrifice, you know? Mmph. I'm having a hard time getting across what I'm trying to say...it's probably the lack of sleep. I didn't even have a spare moment to tie my boots until 2 pm today (luckily for me, they stay on without being laced, although I was getting tripped up every half hour, with people stepping on the laces and such)...no fun. *realizes she's straying* BUT my point is, Lily sacrificed herself for Harry and this sacrificed gained Harry's protection -- the implication is that she wouldn't have had to die otherwise. Argh. Again I am failing to say what I really want to convey. Not too good with words today, I think. *decides to stop trying* laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From frodoyoda at aol.com Sat Mar 9 03:24:05 2002 From: frodoyoda at aol.com (frodoyoda_2000) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 03:24:05 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort want to kill Harry? + Trelawney In-Reply-To: <009c01c1c70f$a13c3940$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36245 I said: > >Personally, I've always thought that it was Voldemort's intent to let > >Lily live just long enough to see her only son murdered, and then to > >kill her as well. It seems to me that that kind of sadistic thing > >would be amusing to him. When she was resistant, I guess he just got > >bored with the games, and killed her. > But then, that wouldn't be a very interesting plot >device, now would > it? So maybe not... and Laura said: > Well, this seems to be at odds with the idea that Harry's >protection was the result of his mother *sacrificing* her life for >him. If V was going to kill her anyway, she wouldn't have been >sacrificing anything, you see? Yes, I know, if he was going to kill >her anyway she wouldn't *know* it, but I don't think the magic would >accept that as sacrifice enough, it had to be a *real* sacrifice, >you know? You have a good point. But it seems to me that it is more Lily's mentality that matters than Voldemort's, when it comes down to it. After all, it was *her* sacrifice, not his. *She* still thought she was dying to save her son. She still asked Voldemort to kill her instead. Molly From jklb66 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 9 03:34:07 2002 From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 03:34:07 -0000 Subject: clearing Sirius/ Dumbledore's gleam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36246 Nyarth wrote: > If Dumbledore's word carried enough weight to get Snape cleared, > couldn't he now testify to clear Black's name too? Admittedly, we > don't know what other evidence was raised at Snape's trial, but a > large number of witnesses (Lupin, Harry, Hermione, Ron, Dumbledore, > even Snape, if someone held a gun to his head) could testify they saw > Pettigrew alive, and that he was an animagus. Dumbledore was able to testify for Snape because he WITNESSED Snape acting as a spy against Voldemort. Dumbledore can't testify for Sirius because he doesn't have any first hand knowledge of Sirius's innocence. All he could say is, "Sirius told me he is innocent, and I believed him." Snape can't testify for Sirius because he was unconcious for everything crucial in the Shreiking Shack. As for the others, Dumbledore says: "There is not a shred of proof to support Black's story, except your word-- and the word of two [or three] thirteen-year-old wizards will not convince anybody....I might add that werewolves are so mistrusted by most of our kind that his support will count for very little-- and the fact that he and Sirius are old friends--" _____________________________________________________ I know that the gleam in Dumbledore's eye in GoF has been discussed to death, but I have to put in my 2 knuts. The part that always gets to me is what follows the gleam. "For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes. But the next second, Harry was sure he had imagined it, for when Dumbledore had returned to his seat behind the desk, he looked as old and weary as Harry had ever seen him." The triumphant look is followed almost instantly by weariness. When I put the two together, I get the very uncomfortable feeling that Voldemort has indeed given himself a fatal flaw; that Harry's death will cause/allow Voldemort's. Dumbledore has a brief, "Gotcha!" moment followed by crushing weight of the knowledge that a boy he has come to love may die. I once saw a movie (I can't remember the title) in which Sean Connery was the voice of a dragon. Early in the movie, a dying character is saved by the "transplant" of a dragon heartstring into the wounded character's heart. Later, the character becomes evil and seems to be impossible to kill. The dragon reveals to the hero that the evil character can't be killed as long as the "donor" dragon, himself, lives. The dragon then decides that he is willing to die in order to stop the evil character and save innocent lives. If there is a parallel to Voldemort and Harry here, I can forgive Dumbledore his brief look of triumph. He has witnessed first hand the destruction that Voldemort and his followers left in their wake. I forgive his brief gleam because it IS followed by the weary look. I'm certain that Albus cried himself to sleep that night. _______________________________________ While we are on the subject of "Poor Harry," I think one of the saddest lines in the books is in ch.2 of GoF, "What he really wanted (and it felt almost shameful to admit it to himself) was someone like- - someone like a parent..." Ashamed of himself for wanting a parent? Poor kid. -Jennifer From porphyria at mindspring.com Sat Mar 9 03:48:45 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 22:48:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Why did Voldemort want to kill Harry? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36247 Molly wrote: "Personally, I've always thought that it was Voldemort's intent to let Lily live just long enough to see her only son murdered, and then to kill her as well. It seems to me that that kind of sadistic thing would be amusing to him. When she was resistant, I guess he just got bored with the games, and killed her. "But then, that wouldn't be a very interesting plot device, now would it? So maybe not..." Laura replied: "Well, this seems to be at odds with the idea that Harry's protection was the result of his mother *sacrificing* her life for him. If V was going to kill her anyway, she wouldn't have been sacrificing anything, you see? Yes, I know, if he was going to kill her anyway she wouldn't *know* it, but I don't think the magic would accept that as sacrifice enough, it had to be a *real* sacrifice, you know? "BUT my point is, Lily sacrificed herself for Harry and this sacrificed gained Harry's protection -- the implication is that she wouldn't have had to die otherwise." Me: Hmmm. I always envisioned Lily literally throwing herself between Voldemort's AK and the baby, literally covering him up with her own body. So his first attempt at AK'ing Harry hits her instead. Then his second attempt is the one that rebounds on him; that's after Lily is dead; hence the sacrifice and the counter-charm. I'd say it doesn't matter if she knew he was going to kill her in the first place or not. I mean, if you know some Evil Lord is going to try to kill your husband and child, wouldn't you sort of expect that you'd wind up dying yourself if push really came to shove? I mean, she knew L.V. was after James and Harry only, so she could have just left town if she'd wanted to, right? Whether she knew for a fact she'd wind up in the crossfire, or whether she knew that theoretically she could talk L.V. into sparing her? I'd say the fact that she chose that her last official act would be to try to protect her baby's life is enough to constitute a sacrifice whether she tho! ught she personally was a target or not. Voldemort did kill her with hardly a second thought. I think this is enough to quash any theories that L.V. and Lily had a "thing" or this list's odd "Ewww" theory which posits that L.V. and Snape had some sort of bargain over her. I agree with David who's said: "I have never understood this argument. Whatever Voldemort's motive for telling Lily to stand aside, it lasted about two seconds in the face of her refusal." Yeah, totally! I mean, if L.V. had even the slightest motivation for sparing her, whether to amuse himself or some other DE, he could have stunned her or body-bound her or something like that, right? It seems to me that he really didn't care one way or another, except that he knew he absolutely had to kill James and Harry (for whatever reason we don't know yet). If Lily got in the way, then too bad for her. That was that. Let me know if I'm missing anything here, ~~Porphyria From jklb66 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 9 04:03:53 2002 From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 04:03:53 -0000 Subject: Puffskein In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36248 When I read "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them," I did not get the impression that Fred killed Ron's pet puffskein. Ron just says that he doesn't have it anymore because, "Fred used it for bludger practice." I got the impression that he hit it so far away that they never found it again. Maybe it ended up at little Cedric's house on the other side of the village. :) -Jennifer "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus." From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat Mar 9 04:56:51 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 04:56:51 -0000 Subject: The Draco Connection (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36249 The Draco Connection (from CoS, Chap. 12) (To the tune of The Rainbow Connection, from The Muppet Movie) Dedicated to Marina THE SCENE: The Slytherin Common Room. DRACO is talking to Harry & Ron (disguised via Polyjuice as Goyle & Crabbe) about the Heir of Slytherin's identity MALFOY: I wish I knew who it is. I could help them. HARRY: (As Goyle) You must have some idea who's behind it all ...... MALFOY: You know I haven't, Goyle, how many times do I have to tell you? (music) Why don't we know any Thing besides rumors? Why does the Heir try to hide? We know he's vicious He's spreading confusion He fills us with Slytherin pride I'd love to tell him how much I could help him But I guess I must wait and see Someday he'll make it, The Draco connection: Through plotters, and schemers, then me He'll make sure everyone Who does not have pure blood Would wish they had not been born. Potter's the Heir, some say, How could you believe it? Who came up with that brainstorm? See the Heir's brave strength, We're on the same wavelength Of where we think Hogwarts should be. Someday he'll choose me, The Draco selection: I'll become his first appointee. Are you two half asleep? Yet, I've heard my Father He says to keep my head down. "We don't want secrets of that hidden chamber To get spread all over town." There've been too many attacks to discount it The Heir of Salazar now runs free. Someday, he'll rule here: Fear Draco's rejection, Dear Granger, you'll be absentee. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Sat Mar 9 06:17:54 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 01:17:54 EST Subject: Ron the Knight Message-ID: <40.1a67a893.29bb0312@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36250 I was re-reading my copy of HP + the SS/PS, when something caught my eye. While persuing "Snape" (though it is actually Quirrell) our beloved trio must partake in the game of chess with life-sized chess pieces. I'm sure that all of you know this...BUT...what made me think was when Ron took over the Knight's position. I don't knw much about chess, so I'm not sure exactly how significant the knight piece is. However, Ron taking the knight piece, and valliently sacrificing himself to help his friends, seems a very powerful thing to do. I know that there's been alot of speculation lately as to Ron possibly being persueded to the "Dark Side", but I think that the gesture of being the "Knight" shows Ron's true side, and proves he's a worthy and caring friend. I know I'm rambling a bit, but does anyone agree with me? *Chelsea* (Who's going to transfer to Slytherin just to be close to Draco :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zeyoung at po.iams.sinica.edu.tw Sat Mar 9 04:33:28 2002 From: zeyoung at po.iams.sinica.edu.tw (ZeYoung Liou) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 12:33:28 +0800 Subject: Ogthrod Ai'f: Undoing Voldemort Message-ID: <3C899098.4FC78592@po.iams.sinica.edu.tw> No: HPFGUIDX 36251 Hello! Greetings to everybody on the group from a newbie ^_^. While reading the HP canon for the umteenth time, I've come up with a few wild guesses that I have not seen raised before in either FAQ or the fanfics I have read... therefore, I would like to share them with you all, so they might be shot down properly. (If this subject has been discussed before, I would be grateful if someone would be kind enough to provide a pointer to the previous discussion, thanks in advance!) 1) Voldemore will be undone. Not killed; not AK'd (reflection or no); not banished; undone, as in having his ressurrection spell -- and perhaps all his 'immortal research' spells before that -- unraveled. The reasons: notice the three components of Voldemort's spell: b) The bone of the father -- the father who was Voldemort's first victim, whom Harry can 'call up' with Priori Incantum: a) The flesh of the servant -- the servant who owes Harry a life debt, and who Harry is thus the true master of; c) The blood of the enemy -- Harry himself! Thus, of the three ingredients to ressurection, Harry has Mastery over all of them! No wonder Dumbledore had that evil glint in his eye -- by lending Harry such power over him, Voldemort had sown the seeds of his own destruction not once, but three times over! (BTW, I suspect that Voldemort does not know of The Rat's life debt towards Harry. He certainly knew nothing of Harry's wand being asister of his own. I think Voldemort is *very* worried right about now... but still does not relaize the full extent of Harry's power over him.) Therefore, I think Harry will use this power to negate the spell that 'holds Voldemort together', thereby destroying him. 2) Voldemort will be stripped of his powers. This is pure speculation, but 'I don't think he had enough human left in him to die.' as said by Hagrid, Voldemort did not die even when hit by a (reflected) AK. Therefore, I would guess that there are really few ways to 'kill' him, if it can be done at all. The most physical damage, or another AK, could do, I think, is to reduce him back into the 'formless cloud of malice' state. Also, I personally do not think that JKR will have Harry kill anyone deliberately -- not even someone as evil as Voldemort. Therefore, my guess is that Harry will use his power over Voldemort to stripe Voldemort of all his wizard powers -- "Voldemort gone forever. All that is left here is Tom Marvolo Riddle -- this wretched, despicable middle-aged Muggle." Hah! That would be Justice! There. I am done. Now, I will save this file somewhere on my hard disk, so I can see just how many miles off the mark I am when the books come out in the future. Zeyoung. Ps: for those three people who are interested, "Ogthrod Ai'f"' is the first verse of the reverse-resurrection spell in H.P. Lovecraft's 'The Case of Charles Dexter Ward'. From selah_1977 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 9 07:52:42 2002 From: selah_1977 at yahoo.com (selah_1977) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 07:52:42 -0000 Subject: The Importance of Hallowe'en Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36252 JKR has long said that October 31--All Hallows' Eve--is by and far her favorite holiday, and so far in the series it has been extremely significant. On that date in 1981, Lily and James Potter perished, Voldemort was reduced to "mere shadow and vapor", and Harry received his scar. On that date in 1991, the Trio--friendship of Harry, Ron, and Hermione--was established over the troll incident. On that date in 1992, the Trio attended Nearly Headless Nick's Deathday Party--the only event in canon from which we can derive real- time dating. On that date in 1994, Harry became Triwizard champion and had his first falling-out with Ron. (NOTE: The PoA Halloween events don't seem to follow this pattern-- there was Harry's missed Hogsmeade visit, subsequent chat with Lupin, and Sirius slashing at the Fat Lady to enter Gryffindor Tower. Still not uneventful by any means.) So what? you may say. Well, the precedent has been set for interesting things to happen on Halloween in the books. All of the Halloweens in canon have something to do with the Trio's friendship, too--in 1993 you had Harry being separated from Ron and Hermione involuntarily when he very much wanted to tag along for the first time. My prediction? If either Ron or Hermione does not survive canon, JKR will take them out on Halloween. She's setting something up here... and it isn't pretty. Am I out in left field here? Are there any other date-parallels in canon? --Ebony AKA AngieJ From lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 9 12:07:59 2002 From: lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com (Ms Lizard Gizzard) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 04:07:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Importance of Hallowe'en In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020309120759.51929.qmail@web13507.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36253 --- selah_1977 wrote: > A precedent has been set for interesting > things to happen on Halloween in the books. .... > Am I out in left field here? Are there any other > date-parallels in canon? Just this one, which is too *perfect* for real life, but might work in a story: Harry's birthday is July 31, which happens to be 9 calendar months after Halloween. Just a thought. Lizgiz __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From heidit at netbox.com Sat Mar 9 12:19:59 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 07:19:59 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Importance of Hallowe'en In-Reply-To: 0 Message-ID: <16600678.1793403480@imcingular.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36254 It's actually 10 months to the day, and pregnancy really is a 40 week (ie 10 month) process. If harry was born 2 weeks late, he would've been conceived on halloween. ----Original Message---- From: Ms Lizard Gizzard Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] The Importance of Hallowe'en Real-To: Ms Lizard Gizzard --- selah_1977 wrote: > A precedent has been set for interesting > things to happen on Halloween in the books. .... > Am I out in left field here? Are there any other > date-parallels in canon? Just this one, which is too *perfect* for real life, but might work in a story: Harry's birthday is July 31, which happens to be 9 calendar months after Halloween. Just a thought. Lizgiz __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ________HPFGU______Hexquarters______Announcement_______________ Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin Remember to use accurate subject headings and to snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Is your message... An announcement of merchandise, news etc.? Send it to HPFGU-Announcements. Movie-related? Send it to HPFGU-Movie. Referencing *only* the books? Send it to HPforGrownups. None of the above? OT? Send it to HPFGU-OTChatter. Unsure? Other questions? Ask your personal List Elf or the Mods -- MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com Unsubscribing? Email hpforgrownups-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com ____________________________________________________________ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From tabouli at unite.com.au Sat Mar 9 13:39:51 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 00:39:51 +1100 Subject: Professor Norris? Message-ID: <017901c1c76f$e467f500$ae26ddcb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 36255 Hahaaa... just thought of a truly sinister new FLIRTIAC twist! OK, so I've mostly theorised so far that Mrs Norris, cat-cursed lover of Filch's, was a Muggle woman. But... ...perhaps she isn't! Perhaps she's really a witch, a talented Auror from the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, who was forced into an abusive marriage to the evil Mr Norris by her parents who refused to let her marry a Squib! Then we have the usual scene where Mr Norris catches her with Filch, turns her into a cat with a curse that can only be undone by Filch (ooohoo, nasty), and Filch snatches up his furry beloved and seeks sanctuary with Dumbledore. For years he pleads with Dumbledore, who alone of all wizards has the power to undo the curse, but to no avail: as a witch who betrayed a secret Death-Eater, says Albus, she is safer as a cat. In Harry's fifth year, however, the situation is too serious. Dumbledore can no longer justify keeping talented a witch hidden in feline form, and reunites Filch with his beloved in human form, thus gaining a new member of staff... Professor Norris, the new and female professor teaching Defence Against the Dark Arts! Yeahhh... Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Joanne0012 at aol.com Sat Mar 9 14:18:25 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 14:18:25 -0000 Subject: The Importance of Hallowe'en In-Reply-To: <16600678.1793403480@imcingular.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36256 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., heidit at n... wrote: > It's actually 10 months to the day, and pregnancy really is a 40 week (ie 10 month) process. If harry was born 2 weeks late, he would've been conceived on halloween. > > Just this one, which is too *perfect* for real > life, but might work in a story: Harry's birthday > is July 31, which happens to be 9 calendar months > after Halloween. Er, October 31 to July 31 is indeed 9 months. The way obstetricians figure that 40-week pregnancy is from last menstrual period (LMP), go back 3 months and add a week (39 weeks being exactly 9 months). So if Harry was conceived on Halloween his due date would have been figured out thus: Starting from October 17 (that's assuming Lily was, um, regular), back 3 months is July 17, add a week is July 24. So he'd have had to be just one week late, even more plausible. From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Sat Mar 9 16:43:43 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 11:43:43 EST Subject: (no subject) Message-ID: <18f.48bc4a9.29bb95bf@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36257 Zeyoung writes: <1) Voldemore will be undone. Not killed; not AK'd (reflection or no); No: HPFGUIDX 36258 Devin wrote: >I still >think Animagi retain their wands (they certainly seem to retain their >clothes). Another question, canon is strangely silent on the state >of Pettigrew's clothes in PoA...is he naked? I was re?reading "The Marauder's Map" chapter in PoA lately when I came across something that really puzzled me. I'd never noticed it before, but this time it really stood out for me. Fudge, reporting the Pettigrew/Black confrontation to Mme Rosmerta, says: "And Black standing there laughing, with what was left of Pettigrew in front of him. . . ** a heap of blood?stained robes** and a few fragments. . ." So, Peter left his robes behind him when he transformed. * Was* he naked in the Shrieking Shack then? Ugh, ugh, shakes self violently trying to rid brain of horrible new envisioning of scene. Nope. Won't work. Stuck with it. Bother. Groan. And what's more now I'm suddenly, completely unwillingly mind, finding myself actually feeling * sorry* for the poor little bastard. It's like Snape facing Moody in his nightshirt only a * thousand* times worse. But what does this tell us about Animagi? Can they really not retain their clothes when they transform? Surely this would be most impractical. Horror! Sirius wasn't naked when he revealed himself at the end of GoF, was he? Hang on, I'll go check. Phew! GoF, "Padfoot Returns": "Sirius was wearing ragged grey robes. The same ones he had been wearing when he had left Azkaban." OK, so maybe an Animagi can either keep or loose their clothes depending on what suites their needs? Pettigrew wanted to leave his robes behind as evidence that he'd been blasted to bits, whereas Sirius clearly prefers to remain dressed. Or maybe a wizard can conjure up clothes and instantly dress himself * while* he's turning back into a human, sort of in the same way Dumbledore magics up sleeping bags or Black makes heavy manacles appear out of nowhere. Still, this does present the Ministry wizards rather unfavourably intelligence wise. Unless they had an Unrippable Charm on them or something surely some flimsy bits of material wouldn't survive when the man wearing them was blasted to smithereens for crying out load! But I guess dim Ministry officials are less than unusual in the Wizarding World. lainaf77 wondered: >However, not only does Hagrid >arrive in time to rescue Harry from the rubble, Sirius loans him >the motorbike to deliver Harry to safety. Also, weren't >Dumbledore and McGonagall there? It just seems to me that no >one put 2 and 2 together at the scene based on the info they >had. Dumbledore did and, really, at the time he was the only one who had the information to so. (Don't forget that according to Fudge it was not widely known that Sirius was the Potters' Secret Keeper). In the very first chapter of PS/SS there's one phrase that ?after I knew the truth behind Black?always impressed me. After Hagrid tells Dumbledore that "young Sirius Black" lent the bike to him, Dumbledore asks sharply "No problems, were there?" If you haven't read PoA this comment can easily be passed by as an example of the general uneasiness of those times. Voldemort has just fallen, wild rumours are circulating, baby Harry has only just been saved from certain death and then rescued from the rubbles of his former home. Not unreasonable to want to make sure all went smoothly picking him up, right? Ah, but if you know who Black is, if you know his role in the tragedy, in short if you know what D. knows (or thinks he knows at least) then this simple question is weighed down with heavy new meanings. D. is alarmed that Hagrid should have met the man who he believes to be responsible for the nights events and who therefore might very probably be feeling quite drastic after his master's undoing and could easily have very sinister designs against Harry. But, when he finds out all went well, he does not voice his suspicions right there and then. After all D. is a very fair man. He would want to confront Sirius himself and demand explanations, hear his side of the story before he went around hurdling out accusations. Very wise of him too. Knowing Hagrid's meagre reserves of self? control I'd bet that if he was told Sirius was to blame he'd throw a fit right there in the middle of Privet Drive. Goodbye to any attempts at secrecy then! He'd have the whole street on it's feet in no time. By the way, one thing I've always wondered. Why did Sirius tell Hagrid he wouldn't be needing the motorcycle any more? The only explanation that I can come up with is that, in a blinding rage that had possessed him and half unhinged by grief, he really does intend to murder Pettigrew. Oh, yeah, actually we know that for a fact, he says so at the end of PoA. So, he knew he would be caught and sent to Azkaban, but had no problem facing the prospect if it was necessary in order to avenge his friends death. He planned his imprisonment and of course knew that in gaol a flying motorbike would not be of much use to him. Fine. No questions up till now. Except that, well, all this doesn't fit in too well with my perception of wizarding justice at all. Surely in the post?Voldemort years a man would be honoured for bringing in a Death Eater, not hauled off to prison. Moody doesn't seem to have been punished for killing Rosier, does he? Debbie pointed out a difference in the levels of mischievousness/ maliciousness (depending on your point of view), between Fred and George. Yeah. I've always been aware of this. Fred seems to be what you might call the "dominant" twin. If you look carefully Fred's usually the first one to speak whenever the two appear and George then follows up with the punch line. He's the leader and George is the follower. Hence it is always "Fred and George" and never "George and Fred". One of my favourite twin moments is the end of GoF. When Harry gives them the bag of Galleons they don't know what to say and their gratitude is very obvious. Interestingly in this context the leader? follower roles of the twins are exchanged. When they bid Harry goodbye it is George who does the speaking while his brother is "nodding fervently at his side." Nevertheless, I do not believe that this places either one of the twins in a better or worse light than the other. I still think we're supposed to accept the two as a unit, as a single entity, much more than real life twins are (though by no means do I presume to be an expert on twin affinity. Is there anyone who actually is a twin and could therefore offer an enlightening perspective on F?G interaction?) ? at the same time however it has to be felt that they are nonetheless individuals with separate though strongly connected personalities. I think that in a way the twins have a double act going here, in the bounds of which each has his own function to fulfil and one that he is perfectly comfortable with. If this pattern were to be broken the act would fall apart. In other words, though I do see differences in their individual behaviour I don't think this can justify a different assessment of their characters. They truly are, to my mind at least, Gred and Forge, so inextricably intertwined with each other and so much `n' sync it is pointless to try and say "this is how Fred is and this is how George is". One last topic: Ron Yu wrote; >Also, Hagrid told something about wizards' not having >invented a spell [our] Hermione can do. How do they >invent spells, and how do they make it universal? The >actual question is: Are spells invented? Don't all of >them exist all along, with the latin language already >present? In GoF Arthur Weasley at the Quidditch World Cup points out Gilbert Wimple, who works for the Committee on Experimental Charms (he's the one with the horns). This would indicate that spells are in fact invented by wizards. My understanding of this is that it is not the word (latin or otherwise) or even the wand that produces the magical effect. These are merely are condensing mechanisms, controlling tools of sorts that allow the witch or wizard to force the magical energy inside them to obey the command of their brain instead of having it go haywire and blowing up aunts left, right and centre. So it is that Dumbledore can perform magic without the use of a wand. He is such a powerful wizard and has such a superb control over his magic, it is but a superfluous accessory for him most of the time. According to this idea, magic is something that presides inside the witch or wizard but which they have to learn how to manipulate properly. Therefore, not only does magic (as is obvious) really need teaching, but the theory of it is necessary as well, (Canon does mention this) * and* spells need to be invented. The members of Committee are in a way experimenting with * themselves*. Seeing how best to work their magic in order to force it to reach the exact desired result. Sorry is this theory has been discussed or is in fact self?evident to anyone. I at least have never come across it before. Charis Julia. Oh, one more thing! Jloveus wrote: >I heard there was something >wrong with the order in which the people came out of the >wand in the Priori Incantatem sequence - that Harry's dad >came out first. However, in my version (she says after >checking) It says Lily comes out first and she says to >Harry that his father's coming now (or something to that >effect). Looking at the inside cover, it says I have a >second edition, so maybe whatever it was was changed before >I got mine. I bought my copy in September 2000 and ?one sec to make sure?yes, it is first edition. In "Priori Incantatem" it says: ". . . knew, because the man appearing from the wand was the one he's thought about more than any other tonight. . . The smoky shadow of a tall man with untidy hair fell to the ground as Bertha had done, straightened up, and looked at him. . .and Harry, his arms shaking madly now, looked back into the ghostly face of his father. "Your mother's coming. . ." he said quietly. "She wants to see you. . . it will be all right. . . hold on . . ." And then Lily appears. Yeah, JKR slipped there initially. But, hey, she got the rest of that horrendously complicated plot right, so I think I'll let her off this one. ;-) Besides, I like this version more. It somehow * fits* better for From fiatincantatum at attbi.com Sat Mar 9 17:30:20 2002 From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 12:30:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Animagi clothes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3C8A005C.4371.2CE737@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 36259 On 9 Mar 2002 at 17:12, charisjulia wrote: > But what does this tell us about Animagi? Can they really not retain > their clothes when they transform? Surely this would be most > impractical. Horror! Sirius wasn't naked when he revealed himself at > the end of GoF, was he? Hang on, I'll go check. It may well be that they are able to choose whether or not to retain their clothing. After all, Professor McGonagall transformed herself into a cat and back in front of a class of third year Gryffindors (including Our Hero) and nobody mentioned clothes, one way or another. Despite their concern over Trelawney's recent silliness, you'd think SOMEONE would notice if, well, YOU know ... Also, both McGonagall and Skeeter are described as having markings that resemble their glasses that they wear in human form. -- 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 Aberforths_Goat at Yahoo.com Sat Mar 9 17:43:08 2002 From: Aberforths_Goat at Yahoo.com (Aberforth's Goat) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 18:43:08 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Animagi clothes References: <3C8A005C.4371.2CE737@localhost> Message-ID: <000901c1c791$e072a680$0200a8c0@shasta> No: HPFGUIDX 36260 Fiat wrote, > It may well be that they are able to choose whether or not to retain their > clothing. After all, Professor McGonagall transformed herself into a cat and > back in front of a class of third year Gryffindors (including Our Hero) and > nobody mentioned clothes, one way or another. Despite their concern over > Trelawney's recent silliness, you'd think SOMEONE would notice if, well, YOU > know ... Actually, Animagi *never* wear clothing: the most difficult part of becoming one is not the (relatively simple) transformation into an animal form but the skull drudgery involved in creating the illusion of clothing on an otherwise naked wizard. This also explains why so few animagi are registerd. The magic involved requires extensive coaching, which, it would seem, Hogwarts staff give with generosity, enthusiasm - and blackmail. Hence, only the cleverest students are able to register. BTW, it should be noted that the evanscent 70s phenomenon of "streaking" was due to large numbers of rebellious young wizards who figured they could learn the technique on their own ... Baaaaaa! Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray) _______________________ "Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been bravery...." From Edblanning at aol.com Sat Mar 9 18:19:54 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 13:19:54 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Paranoia and Flying Hedgehogs Message-ID: <38.246a9a5c.29bbac4a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36261 Elkins quotes me: > Eloise wrote: > > > That's OK, Cindy. It was precisely for people like you ( and me) > > that I proposed the Order of the Flying Hedgehog. As I've said > > before, I think paranoia at this point of the game is a reasonable > > response. Seriously. I do. If JKR's doing her job, then we should > > feel as paranoid as the wizarding community in the face of the next > > Voldy War. > > Hmmmm. Do you think that JKR wants us to be paranoid because we > *ought* to be, or because she wants to lure us into error, only to > then chastise us for it later? > > Now that you put it that way, I think my answer is 'both'. *I* certainly think that she ought to convey to us the type of uncertainty that canon tells us was prevalent during the first Voldy war. On the other hand, she does like to mislead us. So there are literary reasons for inducing reader paranoia, as well as reasons for the characters themselves to be paranoid. I like your gloss, Elkins. >I find it interesting, for >example, that the text seems to place a very strong emphasis on the >*perils* of paranoia...while simultaneously encouraging us to view >this paranoia as justified. There's a tension there, an uneasy >ambivalence. It makes me wonder if we might not start seeing >paranoia itself emerging in Book Five to take its place alongside >prejudice and envy as one of the Big Spiritual Perils of the >Potterverse. You also take me up on 'constant vigilance': >Oh, constant vigilance indeed! But let us not forget from whose >mouth that sentiment was *really* coming all the way through GoF, >shall we? ;-> Obviously, I realise that it was *really* Crouch Jr who was *saying* it, but I also presume that the sentiment is authentically Moody's, given that Crouch's portrayal of Moody was accurate enough to fool Dumbledore. Elkins again: >Eloise, I hereby nominate Meglet for membership in the Order of the >Flying Hedgehog. She has not only confessed to secret thoughts >of "Albus Dumbledore Is Ever So Evil;" she even found a nice bit of >canon to back it up! >Give the lady a...er...well, what precisely *does* one get when one >joins the ranks of the OFH, anyway? (Other than a nervous tic, that is.) Meglet, your certificate of honorary membership is winging its way to you via Owl Post as I write. As for the benefits, well, judging from our great mentor, Mad Eye himself, these chiefly include disfiguring injuries, but also feature a neat range of spare parts. It was just a bit of fun on my part, born out of the Ludo Bagman is Ever so Evil thread, a recognition of the fact that some of us who like to play armchair aurors are also aware that even though we may have good, nay, canon-based, even irrefutable(?!) evidence for our accusations of evil-doing, some of the things we say might just be a little bit, well...subversive. For instance I can, in fact I have, made out a pretty good case (I think) for Fudge being evil, all backed up by canon. On the other hand, I can see the literary objections made by other people and if I'm completely honest, I think they have as much weight as my arguments. But playing aurors when one is not in danger of having half one's face blasted off is rather fun and I don't want to give up just because there are reasonable people out there with sound literary objections. I'm not sure if I'm actually interpreting the text subversively or not and to be frank, I'm not too worried if I'm proved right or wrong. I shall gloat quietly if I'm right, but if I'm not, well I've already admitted that the idea was just a Flying Hedgehog in the first place. In other words, one of the benefits of membership of the OFH is the protection of a very complicated charm, which I would explain if I were Prof Flitwick, which protects one from howlers, hexes and curses sent by the defenders of the upright citizens who get accused along the way (especially in the event of being proved wrong!) This was part of my original post: >Inspired by Alexander and his lovely quote, >>> One must be a complete paranoic to search for the >>> hedgehog at the top of a fir tree. >>> Pavel Shumilov. >I would like to propose the founding of the Order of the Flying Hedgehog (an >oranisation for sensitive and thoughtful vigilantes) and make the following > preliminary suggestions: >Motto: 'Constant Vigilance'. >Proposed Honorary President: Alastor Moody (to be approached). >Aim: the discovery of all possible associates and sympathisers of Lord Voldemort, >past, present and future. >Principles: the dual assumptions that all are guilty until proved innocent and all >innocent until proved guilty. >Benefits: the justification of otherwise slanderous/libellous attacks on characters >who may be blameless (see Principles, above) thus avoiding embarassing climb- >downs when proved wrong. And since I wrote this, Tabouli has come up with another splendid acronym, so that the obligotary badge can finally go into production: >Weeeell, we could always stick with tradition and design a badge bearing a flying >hedgehog with the following legend encircling it: >F.L.Y.I.N.G.H.E.D.G.E.H.O.G. (Fearful League Yabbering "Innocent Narratives > Generally Harbour Enemies, Death-eaters, Grim Henchmen Or Gangsters") First rate, Tabouli, you've got the point *exactly*! On an entirely unrelated topic (other than an idle speculation as to whether we should take a line on the, as I see it, rather unnecessary transfiguration of hedgehogs into pincushions), Elkins signed off the other day, >Elkins, who simply cannot *bear* the thought of murdered pets. Err...would this be the same Elkins who sports featherboas made from murdered owls? Or am I confusing you with someone else? Eloise (who was rather amused to find in the Daily Telegraph today, that the front of the gardening section sported large colour pictures of lupins ( headline, 'Falling in love again'), and then turned over to find the next feature to be on 'Plants with edge'!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Sat Mar 9 18:52:14 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 13:52:14 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore wonderings (WAS The Gleam and the Hiss) Message-ID: <99.22fdccc3.29bbb3de@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36262 In a message dated 09/03/02 02:00:20 GMT Standard Time, rshuson80 at yahoo.com writes: > Another wonderment, not really relevant to the above: > If Dumbledore's word carried enough weight to get Snape cleared, > couldn't he now testify to clear Black's name too? Admittedly, we > don't know what other evidence was raised at Snape's trial, but a > large number of witnesses (Lupin, Harry, Hermione, Ron, Dumbledore, > even Snape, if someone held a gun to his head) could testify they saw > Pettigrew alive, and that he was an animagus. > > -Nyarth I'm not sure that Dumbledore *could* get Sirius off. What evidence does he have, other than his (Sirius') and the children's words? Lupin is a werewolf and we can be sure his word wouldn't count. And neither Dumbledore nor Snape actually *saw* Pettigrew alive in PoA. Snape was unconscious (although he did hear the conversation about the Marauders becoming animagi). Dumbledore simply believes what he's told. He points out that Sirius has not behaved like an innocent man and that he is powerless to do anything. That was why the whole time turner thing was necessary. Nothing evidence-wise has changed since then. On the other hand, if Sirius' real wand is sitting in the MoM, then all he has to do is ask for it to be PI'd and there we are...... but of course, it isn't, because he was framed and.......well, you all know what I'm going to say :-) F.I.E.! Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From magicalme at comcast.net Sat Mar 9 18:55:32 2002 From: magicalme at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 18:55:32 -0000 Subject: Professor Norris? In-Reply-To: <017901c1c76f$e467f500$ae26ddcb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36263 Tabouli wrote (re FLIRTIAC): >Perhaps she's really a witch, a talented Auror from the Department >of Magical Law Enforcement, who was forced into an abusive marriage >to the evil Mr Norris by her parents who refused to let her marry a >Squib! Then we have the usual scene where Mr Norris catches her >with Filch, turns her into a cat with a curse that can only be >undone by Filch (ooohoo, nasty), and Filch snatches up his furry >beloved and seeks sanctuary with Dumbledore. For years he pleads >with Dumbledore, who alone of all wizards has the power to undo the >curse, but to no avail: as a witch who betrayed a secret Death- >Eater, says Albus, she is safer as a cat. Mmmmm. Welllll. Hmmmmm. I'm kinda having some trouble here. If Mrs. Norris is a witch involuntarily imprisoned in a cat's body, why would Dumbledore allow this to continue? Hogwarts is the safest place to be with a Dark Wizard like Voldemort running around, after all. Dumbledore could rescue Mrs. Norris by breaking the dastardly cat-spell, and allow her to live, uh, right there in Filch's quarters at Hogwarts. She'd still be perfectly safe. Also, one would think that once Voldemort was defeated by Harry, Dumbledore would break the spell then, as there was no risk to Mrs. Norris. Eh, maybe we can tweak FLIRTIAC a bit. What if Mrs. Norris is a really, really old witch? Say she's pushing 200. Filch is only about 60, but he has a *major* thing for older women. He falls hard for Mrs. Norris, finding he can appreciate taking life at, uh, her rather slow pace. Then Filch's own family decides she's not good enough for him, and they turn her into a cat in an effort to make him forget her. Filch isn't magical enough to break the spell, of course. Filch pleads with Dumbledore to break the spell, but he won't because transforming Mrs. Norris back into a witch will mean she has precious little time to live. Filch, grief-stricken, decides he'd rather have Mrs. Norris alive as a cat rather than dead as a witch. Are you with me, Tabouli? Cindy (who has a funny feeling that Tabouli is not going to go for this tweak) From Aberforths_Goat at Yahoo.com Sat Mar 9 19:38:18 2002 From: Aberforths_Goat at Yahoo.com (Aberforth's Goat) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 20:38:18 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Professor Norris? References: Message-ID: <00b001c1c7a1$f6d3c3e0$0200a8c0@shasta> No: HPFGUIDX 36264 Cindy speculated, > Filch pleads > with Dumbledore to break the spell, but he won't because > transforming Mrs. Norris back into a witch will mean she has > precious little time to live. Filch, grief-stricken, decides he'd > rather have Mrs. Norris alive as a cat rather than dead as a witch. Better a live cat than a dead wench, eh? Unfortunately, the theory doesn't hold water. After all, Dumbledore is so big about getting on to that "next great adventure" - and if consumating your nuptials with Filch isn't a "great adventure," what is? Wait a sec - maybe *Dumbledore* turned her into into a cat to protect her from the extravagence of Filch's affections. That Filch's Lover has come to Regret said Transformation opens lines of speculation better left uncommented. Baaaaaa! Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray) _______________________ "Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been bravery...." From Zarleycat at aol.com Sat Mar 9 20:13:41 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 20:13:41 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Sirius' guilt (Was: Clearing Sirius/ Dumbledore's gleam) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36265 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jklb66" wrote: > > Dumbledore was able to testify for Snape because he WITNESSED Snape > acting as a spy against Voldemort. Dumbledore can't testify for > Sirius because he doesn't have any first hand knowledge of Sirius's > innocence. All he could say is, "Sirius told me he is innocent, and > I believed him." Which brings up a question regarding Dumbledore and Sirius. We know that Dumbledore believed that Sirius was the Potters' Secret Keeper. He told the MOM that was the case once Sirius was in custody after the confrontation with Pettigrew. What I wonder is this: Did Dumbledore believe the (admittedly) overwhelming evidence of Sirius' guilt and write him off as the worst kind of traitor? Or did he try to visit Sirius either before or right after he was sent to Azkaban to get Sirius' version of the story? If so, was he not allowed this visit? That strikes me as odd. I would think that someone as well-known, respected and powerful as Dumbledore would be able to get at least fifteen minutes to see a prisoner, even if the only way he could do it was to call in some favors. And, if he was allowed the visit, obviously Sirius was not able to convince Dumbledore that he was innocent. And, if that was the case, why does Dumbledore suddenly believe him in PoA? He has no more concrete evidence - he hasn't seen Pettigrew, he hears Snape's version of events, and Remus is not available to offer any explanations. All he has to go on are the observations of Harry and Hermione and whatever Sirius told him while being held in Flitwick's office. Is it Harry/Hermione's explanation that convinces Dumbledore? Marianne From jklb66 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 9 21:43:10 2002 From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 21:43:10 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Sirius' guilt (Was: Clearing Sirius/ Dumbledore's gleam) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36266 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" wrote: I wrote: >Dumbledore can't testify for Sirius because he doesn't have any >first hand knowledge of Sirius's innocence. All he could say >is, "Sirius told me he is innocent, and I believed him." And Mariane replied: > Which brings up a question regarding Dumbledore and Sirius. We >know that Dumbledore believed that Sirius was the Potters' Secret >Keeper. He told the MOM that was the case once Sirius was in custody >after the confrontation with Pettigrew. > > What I wonder is this: Did Dumbledore believe the (admittedly) > overwhelming evidence of Sirius' guilt and write him off as the >worst kind of traitor? Or did he try to visit Sirius either before >or right after he was sent to Azkaban to get Sirius' version of the >story? If so, was he not allowed this visit? That strikes me as >odd. I would think that someone as well-known, respected and >powerful as Dumbledore would be able to get at least fifteen minutes >to see a prisoner, even if the only way he could do it was to call >in some favors. > > And, if he was allowed the visit, obviously Sirius was not able to > convince Dumbledore that he was innocent. And, if that was the >case, why does Dumbledore suddenly believe him in PoA? He has no >more concrete evidence - he hasn't seen Pettigrew, he hears Snape's > version of events, and Remus is not available to offer any > explanations. All he has to go on are the observations of Harry >and Hermione and whatever Sirius told him while being held in >Flitwick's office. Is it Harry/Hermione's explanation that convinces >Dumbledore? Actually, Dumbledore seems to believe Sirius even before he reaches Harry & Hermione in the hospital wing. When he arrives, I'm sure their insisting that Sirius is innocent confirmed Sirius's story for him, but look at his actions even before H&H can say a word-- he kicks everyone out of the room so he can speak to H&H privately. There is no need to do that in order to hear if H&H's story match Sirius's; he does this so he can tell them to use the time-turner. So, somehow, Sirius did convince Dumbledore that he was innocent. Perhaps part of it was that Sirius's story this time was one that 4 other witnesses (Lupin, HRH) could either confirm or deny, so there was no point in lying (other than to buy a few more dementor-free moments). It does make me think that Dumbledore and Sirius did NOT speak before he was sent to Azkaban. Why didn't Dumbledore question him? Either the MoM prevented it, or Dumbledore was so convinced of Sirius's guilt in the wake of Peter's murder that he couldn't or wouldn't speak to him. Dumbledore is probably kicking himself for that now! -Jennifer "We attacked a teacher...We attacked a teacher...Oh, we're going to be in so much trouble--" From m.bockermann at t-online.de Sat Mar 9 23:06:37 2002 From: m.bockermann at t-online.de (m.bockermann at t-online.de) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 00:06:37 +0100 Subject: Why did Voldemort want to kill Harry? References: <1015640065.9048.77241.m10@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <005d01c1c7c5$5c809560$2bf89b3e@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 36267 KK - the Lily and Voldemort theory are related was (and in a way still is, in way) my pet theory. The fact that JKR Herself has called the possibility that LV could be Liliy's father "too Star Wars" (*not* exact quote) was a hard blow. I comfort myself with the possibility that a different kind of relationship might *not* be too starwarsish. And the reason I haven't given up on the theory altogether are largely the reasons you mentioned. Calling Lily - an adult woman - "girl" and giving her a way to back out... making it possible for to make the decision to sacrifice herself... I don't believe he met then for the first time. And there is a reason why I have suspicions about the "Lily-is-a-mudblood-fact" and it has a name: Draco Malfoy. The way I see him, Draco considers squibs and mudbloods the way a racist would think of people that are not white or are not "pureblooded" (just writing about it makes me sick :-( ). He is litist but - in the honored tradition of Slytherins - he sticks to his friends and is loyal to them. He might regard Crabby and Goyle as slow, but there is no indication that he is a bad friend towards them. So when he offers his friendship, I believe him to be honest about it. And he offers Harry his friendship - in the tailor's shop. And again in the train, when he knows who he is. Harry turns down his offer. In a way he also turns down the offer when he asks the hat no to be sent to Slytherin. (I believe the hat when it says that he would have fared well in Slytherin). When Draco insults Hermione or the Weasley's he always speaks as if Harry is "too good" for such people and as if when Harry would "finally find his wits" he would join him. I believe these offers to be sincere. I am sure some will disagree, but I believe Draco here. When they shortened SS they made sure that Harry still had the opportunity to actively turn down Draco's offer for friendship. I believe, that Draco would have been a loyal friend towards Harry. Now... why would he do all of this? His father is a Deatheater, so it's not as if Draco would be impressed with Harry's "victory" over LV. As far as we know, only Harry's father was a wizard and his mother a "mudlbood", making Harry a "halfblood". And those people are usually not very high on Draco's popularity list. So why would he try to gain Harry's friendship? Does he know something about Harry's ancestry that Harry doesn't know? Something that makes Harry accetable in the eyes of people like the Malfoys? Draco knew about Sirius' supposed treason - so he has proven that he knows more about Harry than Harry himself. A relationship between Lily and LV would explain lots of things... - Starting for example with the fact that green is associated with Harry's and Lily's eyes, but mostly with bad stuff like the AK, the Slytherin house (being one of its colors) and snakes. The thing about Harry's and LV's wand. - It is also a reason to justify why Harry has not told Hermione and Ron about it - it might be that members of the same family have similiar wands. Thus, if somebody learned about Harry's wand, the relationship might become obvious. Remember, when DD told Sirius about it in GoF, Sirius was shocked. Similarily, Harry hasn't told anybody besides DD that he could have gone to Slytherin, if he didn't decide differently. I assume that people usually end up in the house of their parents. If the parents were in different houses, the kid has a choice. Thus Padma and Parvati Patil have parents who were not in the same house and chose different houses. - The fact that Harry speaks Parsel. I don't believe in the theory that this talent simply "rubbed" off LV onto Harry. It would make it... fake, somehow. If Harry survived only because of Harry's sacrifice and he gained some of his power's through the attack by LV - why would LV attack him in the first place? What was so important about Harry that he hunted down the Potters? Yes, I know, there is the Trelawny-prediction thing. But that doesn't ring true with me. Let's assume that she predicted that Harry would defeat LV. If this refers to LV's first attack on Harry, she has been proven wrong (LV is now stronger than ever) and this can't be the correct prediction. (Remember, at the beginning of SS DD makes it clear in his conversation with McGonagall that he doubts that LV is dead.) If this refers to a defeat that hasn't happened yet, then again it can't be the correct prediction. All in all, the Trelawny-prediction doesn't convince me. Likewise, the Heir-of-Gryffindor-theory doesn't convince me either. If the heir of Gryffindor can defeat LV, why didn't James defeat him? Why would Harry survive, while James died? And why would LV believe one of Trelawny's ramblings, if, up to her first correct prediction, she never made a correct prediction at all? A relationship between Lily and LV would explain the Parsel thing more logically. - A relationship between Lily and LV would give the Potters an incentive to hide. And they tried everything: they excluded even their best friends from their secret and they used a Pettigrew as a keeper for their secret. From the movie we know that they lived as Muggles when LV found them. Were they hoping that LV wouldn't find them in the Muggle world? A relationship of any kind between Lily and LV would explain so many things that remain unlogical otherwise. I'm looking forward to hearing your arguements. For now, I will step of the soap box now and stop my ramblings. Take care, Barbara Jebenstreit KK wrote: Now, I don't remember that part about "the last Potter," so I can't comment, but I do think this Lily question is an interesting one. I have often dismissed the idea of a relationship between Lily and LV, but Voldemort does strike me as a take no prisoners kind of guy. Plus, now that I think about it, the way he talks to her in Harry's memories sounds a little different than I would expect. There seems to be some familiarity there. I don't have PoA with me, but I think he says something like "Stand aside girl. Don't be a fool." He's definitely giving her a friendly out there and I don't know why he would do that, unless he honestly didn't want to kill her if he didn't have to. If he didn't care two wits about her, wouldn't he more likely say "You little fool, do you think a little witch like yourself can stand up to me? (cackle, cackle, cackle)"? Since Lily was Muggle-born, it does seem unlikely Voldemort has any blood relationship to her unless Tom Riddle had a brother or sister we don't know about who was not at all magical and so lived as a Muggle. (Aside: Would a non-magical child with only half-wizard blood be called a squib? Anyone?) Another option is that Lily was his daughter and he gave her up or didn't know about her or she was taken from him and raised by Muggle parents . . . ooooh, killing his own daughter and grandchild. That's very bad! That's also a little too Star Wars for me. From tanie_05 at hotmail.com Sun Mar 10 00:10:53 2002 From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 00:10:53 -0000 Subject: More Moody Madness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36268 Leon wrote: > Something I have never been able to work out about the whole > GoF "Crouch is Mad Eye Moody" thing: > > Why did he help any of the kids at all? I can (barely) understand his > helping Harry to get to the end of the TriWizard tournament so that > he could touch the portkey and get to Voldemort (which is a huge > stretch when there were so many other ways to do this - just take > Harry out for icecream in Hogsmead and then portkey him there. Or > forget the portkey. Knock him cold and carry him. Whatever.) That has always confused me too..until I read this essay on the Lexicon. Then I got it. Here's the link; you should read it, it may help: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/why_cup.html. (BTW, thanks Steve!!) > And why did he give Neville those books, inspiring the kid to work > harder to excel. Why not laugh at the feeble spawn of the parents he > had killed, and leave Neville to wallow another year? He never killed Neville's parents. He just drove them insane with the Crucius Curse. -Kyrstyne From tanie_05 at hotmail.com Sun Mar 10 00:34:45 2002 From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 00:34:45 -0000 Subject: More Moody Madness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36269 I wrote: > That has always confused me too..until I read this essay on the > Lexicon. Then I got it. Here's the link; you should read it, it may > help: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/why_cup.html. (BTW, thanks > Steve!!) Oops! Sorry! Maybe this one'll work. http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/why_cup.html From uncmark at yahoo.com Sat Mar 9 23:10:52 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 23:10:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Sirius' guilt (Was: Clearing Sirius/ Dumbledore's gleam) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36270 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jklb66" wrote: > > > > Dumbledore can't testify for Sirius because he doesn't have any > > first hand knowledge of Sirius's innocence. All he could say > > is, "Sirius told me he is innocent, and I believed him." "kiricat2001" wrote: > We know that Dumbledore believed that Sirius was the Potters' > Secret Keeper. He told the MOM that was the case once Sirius was > in custody after the confrontation with Pettigrew. > > What I wonder is this: Did Dumbledore believe the (admittedly) > overwhelming evidence of Sirius' guilt and write him off as the > worst kind of traitor? ...And, if that was the case, why does > Dumbledore suddenly believe him in PoA? He has no more > concrete evidence - he hasn't seen Pettigrew, he hears Snape's > version of events, and Remus is not available to offer any > explanations. All he has to go on are the observations of Harry > and Hermione and whatever Sirius told him while being held in > Flitwick's office. Is it Harry/Hermione's explanation that convinces Dumbledore? He also has 150+ years of experience, plus the pensieve, and no doubt an undisclosed arsenal of magical artifacts to find the truth. I'm convinced that Dumbledore would have used the pensieve to examine his own memories of the time. I'm also convinced that he is not fooled by invisibility cloaks and probably keeps the HRH under some sort of magical surveillance (and probably many others at Hogwart's) I'm guessing he knew Sirius was hiding in the Shrieking Shack, but knew their was more to the story as Sirius was not acting like a Dark Wizard after Harry. After Pettigrew and Rita Skeeter, I'm wondering if he's developing an Animagus tracker. Uncmark From adhara_black at yahoo.co.uk Sat Mar 9 20:27:25 2002 From: adhara_black at yahoo.co.uk (adhara_black) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 20:27:25 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Sirius' guilt (Was: Clearing Sirius/ Dumbledore's gleam) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36271 Marianne wrote: What I wonder is this: Did Dumbledore believe the (admittedly) overwhelming evidence of Sirius' guilt and write him off as the worst kind of traitor? Or did he try to visit Sirius either before or right after he was sent to Azkaban to get Sirius' version of the story? If so, was he not allowed this visit? That strikes me as odd. I would think that someone as well-known, respected and powerful as Dumbledore would be able to get at least fifteen minutes to see a prisoner, even if the only way he could do it was to call in some favors. Adhara writes: Fair questions, leading to an even more fundamental one : how come Sirius was sent to Azkaban without a trial?! It's not as if it isn't common practice in the wizarding world (we get a description of Crouch Jr.'s trial in GoF after all). Yes, there is this reference to 'overwhelming evidence' but with Pettigrew's real role apparently hidden to those who arrived on the scene shortly afterwards, we don't know how much is fact and how much is (Evil?) Fudge's fabrication and embellishment. Bearing in mind what we know about Dumbledore's sense of fairness and justice, I find it astonishing that he didn't do anything to make sure Sirius got a trial, no matter how 'overwhelming' the evidence was! -Adhara (aka Epsilon Canis Major) From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Sun Mar 10 02:59:07 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 02:59:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore = Nicholas Flamel? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36272 Ya know, I've been on this board for many months now, and I don't think I've ever seen this discussed: Is Dumbledore really Nicholas Flamel? We never see old Nick in SS, do we? I don't know of any evidence that shows it is not true, do you? My theory: DD is Nick. He changed his identity. The trick: first go into obscurity. Notice how much trouble the kids have finding out who Nick is? He's obviously been out of contemporary media, even if he supposedly is alive. Then, wait many years, and pop back upon the scene as Dumbledore. Notice no one has ever researched DD's bio in any of the books. Do we even know if he went to Hogwarts? Or any other school? I don't think it's even been mentioned. So he starts to get acclaim for himself, and eventually rises to high levels of prominence. Here's a quick list of the relevant anecdotes, pro & con, that I can think of at the moment: Dumbledore's Chocolate Frog card bio mentions he works with Nicholas Flamel, BUT that could be just the cover story he's created. Dumbledore battled Grindewald in 1945, this and other anecdotes show he's quite old, BUT he could have simply sampled the fruits of Nick's potions obtained with the Sorceror's Stone Hagrid slips up a lot in SS, but never slips about DD being Nick BUT it is extremely likely DD is very clever about hiding that fact from *everybody*. I doubt anyone would be old enough to know. In Hermione's book, it talks about how Nicholas Flamel & his wife Pernelle live a quiet life in Devon, BUT the book is described as "very old." The quiet life bit corroborates Nick going into hiding before re-emerging as DD, and the "very old" bit shows that Nick may no longer even be in Devon anymore! He is definitely not mentioned in Study of Recent Developments in Wizardry. At the end of SS, DD talks about the stone. "As much money and life as you could want!" Now, reflect back to the Mirror of Erised. DD says he only sees himself holding a pair of wool socks (which I see as him being silly, not really meaning it). So if he doesn't really have those desires, if he really has everything he wants, then isn't it likely he can have as much gold as he wants, and is immortal? Taking a cue from the Elves in the Lord of the Rings, nothing eliminates desire like being immortal -- there's simply all the time in the world to do whatever you want to do, kind of takes the fun out of it. He does talk about how Nick & Pernelle will die, AND he does seem older to Harry at the end of GoF, BUT that was a very traumatic book, so it would only make sense to look older, no matter who you are. Finally (just because I'm tired of typing), many times in the four books it is insinuated that DD knows many of the "ancient magics". Well, he bloody well should if he's Nicholas Flamel! Anyway, do you agree? Are there holes in my theory? Let me know! Cheers! A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From emmbp at yahoo.com Sun Mar 10 00:50:57 2002 From: emmbp at yahoo.com (emmbp) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 00:50:57 -0000 Subject: The Bureau for the Betterment of Missing Muggles, Witches, and Wizards (BMW*2) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36273 Hear ye... Hear ye... I hereby announce the opening of a new office at the Ministry of Magic: The Bureau for the Betterment of Missing Muggles, Witches, and Wizards (BMW*2) The Bureau's main responsibility is to flesh out the missing persons, objects, and plot devices of the Magical World. Keep an eye out, and let no one pass through our fingers. The BMW*2 is here to match up the loose ends. Requirements for those who are interested in seeking employment with the BMW*2: 1) Must believe that Canon is Always Relevant (CAR) 2) Must hold that most Descriptions Offered by Dumbledore Generate Evidence (DODGE) 3) Must accept that Names Infer Special Situations And Nuances (NISSAN) 4) Must recognize that those missing are For Obscure Reasons Discussed (FORD) Found In Advance of Take-off (FIAT): The official list of those MMWW who have successfully been discovered and shown to have significance in Canon: 1) Ms Arabella Figg (first mentioned in SS/PS, later mentioned in GoF) 2) Mundungus Fletcher (first mentioned in CoS, twice in GoF) 3) Sirius Black (first in SS/PS, later in PoA and GoF) 4) Cho Chang (first in PoA, later in GoF) 5) Cedric Diggory (first in PoA, later in GoF) Happened to be Observed: Not Developed Adequately (HONDA): The official list of those MMWW who, while known to exist, have been overlooked until now. 1) Ali Bashir (last known to have imported illegally several flying carpets) 2) Florence (the mysterious girl mentioned by Bertha Jorkins in the Pensieve) 3) Doris Crockford (an over-excited witch last seen in the Leaky Cauldron) 4) Keeper of Keys (Title used by Hagrid, but never explained) I invite all to enlist in the services of the BMW*2. Those interested parties should submit names to either of the two lists, and will thereby be inducted into the Bureau, and will promptly be awarded a handsome BMW*2 badge. Very Sincerely, Brady Emmett Director From chynarose8 at hotmail.com Sat Mar 9 22:13:45 2002 From: chynarose8 at hotmail.com (abigail_draconi) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 22:13:45 -0000 Subject: Motives with Magic. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36274 I am not sure if this particular subject has been examined before, as I am new to the list and find the task of searching the archives rather daunting, but has anyone explored why Vernon is so fanatically anti-magic. His attitude seems, to me at least, to far surpass his wife's in terms of the hatred. Yet Petunia's the only one for whom we have a hunch as for why: jealousy over her sister Lily. Personally, I figure that Vernon, his father, or his grandfather had an *extremely* bad run in with magic or a magical person. @---<-- Chyna Rose From graceofmyheart at hotmail.com Sat Mar 9 21:19:12 2002 From: graceofmyheart at hotmail.com (flower_fairy12) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 21:19:12 -0000 Subject: clearing Sirius/ Dumbledore's gleam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36275 > I put the two together, I get the very uncomfortable feeling that > Voldemort has indeed given himself a fatal flaw; that Harry's death > will cause/allow Voldemort's [death]. Dumbledore has a brief, "Gotcha!" > moment followed by crushing weight of the knowledge that a boy he has > come to love may die. > That's the best explanation of the 'Gleam in eye' thing I have heard so far. It makes sense. I never really thought that it had anything to do with Dumbledore being evil or anything, because after all, it wouldn't be a very good book (and kind of pointless) if every character exept Harry was really Voldermorts spy. The good outweighs the bad in everything anyway, so the books certainly need that balance. Rosie From catlady at wicca.net Sun Mar 10 03:34:02 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 03:34:02 -0000 Subject: murdered owls / Is Dumbledore really Flamel? (NO!!) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36276 Eloise wrote: > > Elkins, who simply cannot *bear* the thought of murdered pets. > Err...would this be the same Elkins who sports featherboas made > from murdered owls? Or am I confusing you with someone else? Not Elkins's fault: it was Tabouli who draped her with bloody feathers: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/35200 and http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/35324 brewpub Barkeep wrote: > Notice no one has ever researched DD's bio in any of the books. > Do we even know if he went to Hogwarts? In SS/PS, Hermione said: "I hope I'm in Gryffindor, it sounds by far the best; I hear Dumbledore himself was in it". Also, JKR said in interview that Dumbledore is 150 years old. Would she have said that so out-right in an interview is she was going to pull some twister about 'the Dumbledore identify is 150 years old' because Flamel started creating it 150 years old? "Q: How old is old in the wizarding world, and how old are Professors Dumbledore and McGonagall? JKR: Dumbledore is a hundred and fifty, and Professor McGonagall is a sprightly seventy." from http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm via http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ From uncmark at yahoo.com Sun Mar 10 05:23:15 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 05:23:15 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort want to kill Harry? + Trelawney In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36277 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., > > > Starlight wrote: > > > > > Why Harry? What could he possibly have against a > > > little baby? Why was he prepaired to spare Lily's > > > life, when she was more dangerous for him > > > than Harry ever was till then? Shouldn't that tell > > > us something about the <> between Lily > > > and Voldermort? --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ms Lizard Gizzard wrote: > > Now... in book 3, Professor Trelawney goes into a > > trance and predicts the return of Voldemort. > > Dumbledore muses that that is perhaps her *second* > > real prediction. I have to wonder if (again, sorry if > > this is a repeat on this board.) her *first* real > > prediction was that a Potter would bring about LV's > > downfall. With the name Sibyl I'm seeing a Greek Oracle parallel with Tralawney's first prophecy. Consider the ancient example from Oedipus Rex (often copied in modern literature.) The king receives a prophecy that his son will kill him and take his mother. The king decides to avoid this by killing the son and orders him killed. The baby survives (of course) and is raised in ignorance of his heritage and the prophecy. As a young man the prince gets in an argumant with a man on a road and kills him. The man was the king who attempting to avoid a prophecy unknowingly fulfills it. Consider if Sibyl's first prophecy was about Harry. I've imagined James and Lily as some of the leading young wizards fighting LV, possibly aurors, yet not THE leading wizards. In a VERY PUBLIC gathering at Hogwart's (possibly their wedding or the Baby's christening)Sibyl Tralawney goes into a trance and prophesies the the Potter baby will cause the downfall of LV, putting into motion a string of events. 1 Pettigrew informs LV of the prophecy. LV is the first person to take it seriously. 2 LV places Baby Potter on his Dark Wizard Hit List. 3 Snape (spy for Dumbledore) sends word to Hogwart's 4 Potter's decide to go into hiding. Potters decide on Sirius as Secret Keeper for Fidelus Charm, Tell Dumbledore of this. 5 Pettigrew convinces Sirius to let him switch with him. Betrays Potters. 6 LV goes to Godric Hollow. Attacks James at door, possibly stunning or wounding him. 7 Lily tries to protect Harry, LV tells her to stand aside, Lily refuses. Lily killed 8 Lilys sacrifice protects Harry, LV casts AK on Harry, but it backfires, destroying LV's body. By trying to stop a prophecy, LV enables it to be fulfilled 9 James dies after Lily, either from blood loss or the house falling on him. This explains the order of the Potters in GofF when LV's wand spits out victims. I don't buy that LV was saving Lily for any PG-13 interest of his own. I might consider he was keeping Lily as a witness of his killing Harry. Possibly making a statement to his power. Uncmark From catlady at wicca.net Sat Mar 9 09:30:28 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 09:30:28 -0000 Subject: Veritaserum / the Gleam Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36278 Rosie flowerfairy wrote: > Maybe Dumbledore *can* be sure that Snape will not go over to the > evil side, because when Snape decided to turn against Vodemort, and > wanted to be a good guy, Dumbledore wanted to make sure that he was > telling the truth so used the Veritaserum on him. This way, he > knows he isn't lying and he can trust him. Veritaserum can ensure that the person is telling the truth (he really does want to be on your side, not just to worm his way into your confidence in order to spy on you or assassinate you for the other side's benefit) but Veritaserum cannot ensure that the person will never change his mind in the future. Ze Young Liou wrote: > 'I don't think he had enough human left in him to die.' as said by > Hagrid, Voldemort did not die even when hit by a (reflected) AK. > Therefore, I would guess that there are really few ways to 'kill' > him, if it can be done at all. The most physical damage, or another > AK, could do, I think, is to reduce him back into the 'formless > cloud of malice' state. I believe that Riddle's immortality spells changed him from mortal human Riddle to immortal snake-man Voldemort, and that is why he survived being destroyed by reflected AK. But he gave up the immortality in order to get re-embodied -- his speech to the Death Eater circle in the graveyard includes: "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." I agree with what AEGEUS posted: <> and what JENNIFER jklb66 posted: <> From uncmark at yahoo.com Sat Mar 9 23:43:33 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 23:43:33 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort want to kill Harry? + Trelawney In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36279 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "erised_straeh" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., > > Starlight wrote: > > > > > Why Harry? What could he possibly have against a > > > little baby? Why was he prepaired to spare Lily's > > > life, when she was more dangerous for him > > > than Harry ever was till then? Shouldn't that tell > > > us something about the <> between Lily Ms Lizard Gizzard wrote: > > Now... in book 3, Professor Trelawney goes into a > > trance and predicts the return of Voldemort. > > Dumbledore muses that that is perhaps her *second* > > real prediction. I have to wonder if (again, sorry if > > this is a repeat on this board.) her *first* real > > prediction was that a Potter would bring about LV's > > downfall. > > > No arguments here. The first prediction, I believe, is the > frontrunner among opinions as to how LV knows that Harry is a threat. I'm considering the traditional Oracle motif from Greek Literature. In Oedipus Rex, Oedipus' father had a prophecy his son would kill him and ordered the son killed. The son was spirited off and raised in ignorance. Years later he fought with a stranger on a road and... you guessed it killed his father. I'm seeing a similar theme with Tralawney's prediction. I'm imagining James and Lily as possibly top aurors in the war with LV. Maybe not #1 on his hit list UNTIL Professor Tralawney in a VERY PUBLIC setting goes into a trance and foretells that James and Lily's son will cause the downfall of LV. I'm picturing their wedding or Harry's Christening. 1)Pettigrew passes on the news to LV 2)LV places Baby Harry on a Dark Wizard Hit List 3)Snape passes on this info to Dumbledore 4)The Potters hide in Godric's Hollow 5)Sirius is picked as the secret-keeper 6)At the last minute Pettigrew convinces Sirius to switch with him 7)Pettigrew betrays the Potters 8)LV arrives at Godric's Hollow and uses AK on Harry 9)The backfire zaps LV fulfilling Sybil's prophecy! "davewitley" suggested that, "Either AK takes it out of you enough to want to try to use it sparingly, or he thought 'stand aside' was easier to say, or he wanted her to see her son die - but whatever it was it didn't matter." I'm guessing the first (or both) and adding that he may have just stunned or wounded James at the front door and wanted to save him until later. LV might have been wanting Lily to see her son killed to give witness to his power. (I don't like the PG-13 theories of him having some attraction to Lily) Anyway, Lily would not let him and sacrificed herself creating the countercharm of a mother's unconditional love that caused the backlash. Finally if James died later from bloodloss or the house falling on him from LV's fall, that would explain the order of the Potter's apperance in GofF when LV's wand had the Priori Incantatem effect. Does this make any sense to you? Uncmark From klhurt at yahoo.com Sun Mar 10 08:10:38 2002 From: klhurt at yahoo.com (Kelly Hurt) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 00:10:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore = Nicholas Flamel? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020310081038.72861.qmail@web14203.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36280 --- brewpub44 wrote: [snip] >Is Dumbledore really Nicholas Flamel? [snip] >Anyway, do you agree? Are there holes >in my theory? Let me know! Since Dumbledore's brother is still alive, I doubt this. Kelly the Yarn Junkie ===== Pensieve A Harry Potter List for Adults Low Traffic - High Quality http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pensieve __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From conquistas2000 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 10 06:51:22 2002 From: conquistas2000 at yahoo.com (conquistas2000) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 06:51:22 -0000 Subject: Motives with Magic. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36281 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "abigail_draconi" wrote: > I am not sure if this particular subject has been examined before, as > I am new to the list and find the task of searching the archives > rather daunting, but has anyone explored why Vernon is so fanatically > anti-magic. His attitude seems, to me at least, to far surpass his > wife's in terms of the hatred. Yet Petunia's the only one for whom we > have a hunch as for why: jealousy over her sister Lily. > Personally, I figure that Vernon, his father, or his grandfather had > an *extremely* bad run in with magic or a magical person. > @---<-- Chyna Rose In the beginning of GoF, some of the Death-Eaters are praticing the time honored tradition of Muggle Torture. Perhaps Vernon's family or himself have first hand experience with the Death Eaters. It would certainly explain his hatred of anything magical. It would also explain his fear of magic also, since he have seen what horrors magic can do. "conquistas2000" From deadstop at gte.net Sun Mar 10 10:23:10 2002 From: deadstop at gte.net (Stacy Stroud) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 05:23:10 -0500 Subject: Trelawney's First Prediction Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20020310051043.00aa8bf8@mail.gte.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36282 saintbacchus asked, RE Trelawney's first true prediction as bearing on the Potter/Voldy conflict: >What I want to know is, how did Voldemort know about a >prediction made by a Hogwarts staffer? Spies? Well, we don't know the prediction was actually made during the last Voldemort War. Perhaps it was Tom Riddle who was witness to Trelawney's first true prediction, much as Harry witnessed her second? Trelawney could still have been a teacher at the time, or she might have been a fellow student. (McGonagall's not much older than Riddle, and we know Minerva and Sibyll have a bit of animosity going; perhaps Trelawney is of similar age and went to school with both McGonagall and Riddle.) For an added twist, perhaps she used the name "Lord Voldemort" in the prediction, meaning that Tom was the only one who understood it at the time (having been using the nickname in secret among his friends). That could also explain why Dumbledore counts it as a true prediction even if its fulfillment may still be playing out: the rise of a Dark Lord named Voldemort has already come to pass, and suggests that the rest of the prediction (about his fall at the hands of a Potter or whatever) might also be true. Stacy Stroud (deadstop at gte.net) Hex Entertainment, Inc. (http://www.hexgames.com) From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Mar 10 12:23:50 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 12:23:50 -0000 Subject: Neville and the Canary Creams In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36283 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > > In GoF, when Harry learns of Crouch/Moody's passing on Professor > Sprout's praise to Neville, he thinks of it both as "very tactful" > and as "something that Professor Lupin would have done." (I'm > paraphrasing from memory here, so forgive me if I'm a word or two > off.) The implication seems to be that Harry believes Lupin's > encouragement of Neville to have been both tactful and wholly > positive...and I'm not altogether certain that I believe that it > really felt that way to Neville himself -- much in the same way, > in fact, that I'm not altogether certain that I believe that > Neville's feelings towards Hermione's acts of kindness towards him > are utterly positive or without a certain degree of ambivalence. > > Of course, I could be wrong about that. And I am very likely to be > over-identifying, projecting myself rather too much onto the > character. But it does strain my suspension of disbelief somewhat to > think that Neville does *not* notice the pity and the condescension, > or that these things do not, on some level, bother him. > Regarding Neville's feelings towards Hermione, he does ask her to the ball and specifically mentions her kindness to him (or was it that "she was always nice to him"? Haven't got the books here). To me it sounds that he both likes her and is grateful to her for being kind to him. It's not complete proof, but significant, IMO. Moreover, my sense of Neville is that he feels so weak, luckless and skill-less that he is humbly grateful for any help or kind attention that comes his way. Remember that he says of himself that he is almost a squib? In wizard talk that probably amounts to "I'm almost a certified imbecil." To me, what is so heart rending about Neville is that he has no self-belief at all. I sense him as being constantly hurt by his inadequecy (real and imagined) and yet somehow not falling into the pit of self-hatred. He's very lovable that way and very pitiable too - like a lost child in a panicky search for someone to lean on. Hmmm.. maybe I'm taking this too far... In any case, I do think that Neville sends an unspoken but clear message that he needs taking care of, that he needs help and kindness, and that he is certainly in no position (mentally, that is) to resent the form in which that help is given. Naama horrified to suddenly realize that Neville is no. 1 candidate for Forthcoming Death (but would sacrifice Neville in a minute if it would save Hagrid) From ruben at satec.es Sun Mar 10 12:08:44 2002 From: ruben at satec.es (elirtai) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 12:08:44 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore = Nicholas Flamel? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36284 Hello, A Barkeep in Diagon Alley wrote: > Is Dumbledore really Nicholas Flamel? [rest snipped] An interesting theory, I enjoyed reading it :-) I don't really believe it, but I can't find any holes. Kelly the Yarn Junkie countered: > Since Dumbledore's brother is still alive, I doubt this. I've looked up the part about his brother, and my conclusion is that we have no real evidence about him having a live brother, other than his own words. If the theory was true, this wouldn't be the hardest part to fake. Here's the quote (from GoF, chapter 24, "Rita Skeeter's scoop"): [begin quote] An excellent point," said Professor Dumbledore. "My own brother, Aberforth, was prosecuted for practicing inappropriate charms on a goat. It was all over the papers, but did Aberforth hide? No, he did not! He held his head high and went about his business as usual! Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been bravery..." [end quote] Note that it was "all over the papers", but we know how easily press can be manipulated. And there's the prosecution proceedings probably, anyway the Ministry seems to be as easily fooled as the press, if not more... so this is not necessarily a hole although it was well spotted. Now, for my own contribution and other reasons why I don't believe it (although that's a hunch, nothing of this is hard evidence either). First, he appears in Tom Riddle's diary. His apparent age (which he could have altered magically, I'll grant) is consistent with his supposed age at that time. That's also near the time of his victory over Grindelwald, which must have weighed for his election as next headmaster. He became a famous man if he wasn't before. He was probably in focus on the papers, and was the buzz of the moment. Surely a lot of people were trying to dig his past up. It would be hard to explain why the staff at Hogwarts who admitted him didn't know anything. Anyway, the Barkeep further says: > Taking a cue from the Elves in the Lord of the Rings, nothing > eliminates desire like being immortal -- there's simply all the time > in the world to do whatever you want to do, kind of takes the fun out > of it. Yes, I agree with that! But if you look at Dumbledore now, and at Tolkien's elves, there's a definite difference. He has fun out of a lot of things. He's one to involve himself and take a stance in every situation. He certainly doesn't looks like one who has got bored with life knowing that life will eventually give him everything he wants. Cheers, Elirtai From pen at pensnest.co.uk Sun Mar 10 12:55:24 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 12:55:24 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] More Moody Madness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36285 Leon wrote: >Something I have never been able to work out about the whole >GoF "Crouch is Mad Eye Moody" thing: >Why did he help any of the kids at all? I can (barely) understand his >helping Harry to get to the end of the TriWizard tournament so that >he could touch the portkey and get to Voldemort (which is a huge >stretch when there were so many other ways to do this - just take >Harry out for icecream in Hogsmead and then portkey him there. Or >forget the portkey. Knock him cold and carry him. Whatever.) >ahem. >My question though, is why Moody worked with Harry so many times on >the curses, why he worked with Harry until it was nearly guarenteed >that he'd be able to resist Voldemort? I find that a bit puzzling, too. Perhaps Moody was initially hoping Harry would be susceptible to the Imperius curse, and worked on him to find his limits. >And why did he give Neville those books, inspiring the kid to work >harder to excel. Why not laugh at the feeble spawn of the parents he >had killed, and leave Neville to wallow another year? The exotic herbology book was specifically 'planted' with Neville because it contained information on gillyweed, which Moody/Crouch knew Harry would need for the second task. He assumed Harry would ask everyone for help, and that Neville would remember the gillyweed and tell him about it. He's actually using Neville's vulnerability as a way to get information to Harry without it being obvious that he's helping Harry. It seems to me there are some subtle opportunities for Moody/Crouch to indulge in a little light sadism with his pupils. F'rinstance, he recognises Neville as the child of two people who were driven mad by the Cruciatus curse. So he enlarges the spider and keeps it under the curse, and Neville is deeply affected by the sight. He applies the Imperius curse to Harry, who ends up hobbling out of the lesson because he has banged his legs against the desk so many times while trying to resist it. (One M/C knew that Harry could resist, he could have commanded him to bark like a dog, or something of the kind, which it would not have *hurt* Harry to resist.) Later, he leaves Harry with his leg painfully stuck in the staircase while he asks questions, and only releases him when Harry pleads. The Malfoy ferret incident also fits in with this. From Harry's POV, which is what we get in the books, it marks Moody as a good guy, but it's a pretty traumatising thing to do to a student. Moody/Crouch is indulging himself with nasty games at the expense of the son of one of the Death Eaters who walked free. All this stuff *could* be excused because Moody is just not a very sensitive type, if Moody is a good guy. But as Moody turns out to be Moody/Crouch, I see these incidents as Crouch allowing himself to be nasty to the students without any comeback. >It seems totally out of character for Crouch, even mascarading as >Moody. All Crouch needed was to be mediocre - teach the course book, >don't cover extras, keep a low profile. Befriend Harry along the way >only as much as it would help keep him in the game. I think Moody is such an obviously flamboyant character that any attempt to be ordinary would have Dumbledore's suspicions aroused instantly. And if Moody/Crouch were to be discovered early on, there would be no chance for him to get Harry Potter to his Master. Pen From lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 10 14:20:52 2002 From: lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com (Ms Lizard Gizzard) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 06:20:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Potters' Profession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020310142052.24715.qmail@web13508.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36286 > I'm seeing a similar theme with Tralawney's > prediction. I'm imagining James and Lily as > possibly top aurors in the war with LV. One thing that JKR did reveal is that James had inherited a great wealth and "did not have to work." I suppose that doesn't mean he did not work, but she seemed to indicate that he had a life of leisure. liz __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From fiatincantatum at attbi.com Sun Mar 10 14:45:10 2002 From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 09:45:10 -0500 Subject: Prophecies, Trelawney & Centaurs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3C8B2B26.23135.2C28BF7@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 36287 On 10 Mar 2002 at 5:23, uncmark wrote: > Consider if Sibyl's first prophecy was about Harry. I've imagined > James and Lily as some of the leading young wizards fighting LV, > possibly aurors, yet not THE leading wizards. In a VERY PUBLIC > gathering at Hogwart's (possibly their wedding or the Baby's > christening)Sibyl Tralawney goes into a trance and prophesies the the > Potter baby will cause the downfall of LV, putting into motion a > string of events. One thing that we might want to remember is that there is more than one prophecy running around and IMHO the originators of the other prophecy (for lack of a better word) are a lot more believable than Trelawney: the centaurs in the Forbidden Forest. << begin quote>> from book 1 (US edition, chapter fifteen "The Forbidden Forest") "Firenze!" Bane thundered. "What are you doing? You have a human on your back! Have you no shame? Are you a common mule?" "Do you realize who this is?" said Firenze. "This is the Potter boy. The quicker he leaves the forest, the better." "What have you been telling him?" growled Bane. "Remember, Firenze, we are sworn not to set ourselves against the heavens. Have we not read what is to come in the movements of the planets?" Firenze suddenly reared on to his hind legs in anger, so that Harry had to grab his shoulders to stay on. "Do you not see that unicorn?" Firenze bellowed at Bane. "Do you not understand why it was killed? Or have the planets not let you in on the secret? I set myself against what is lurking in this forest, Bane, yes, with humans alongside me if I must." "Good luck, Harry Potter," said Firenze. "The planets have been read wrongly before now, even by centaurs. I hope this is one of those times." <<< end of quoted material>> So, there is the evidence of another prophecy (of sorts) that is known to the centaurs. I'd consider them a more creditable source of predictions than Trelawney, any day. So, what is it that "is to come" that the centaurs see? What was Bane worried that Firenze might have told Harry? Why does Firenze hope that the centaurs are wrong this time? If it is only the second return of Voldemort, then why does helping Harry constitute setting oneself "against the heavens"? Harry doesn't give the encounter another thought, but it *can't* just be a throwaway scene, there's too much potential there. It is never referenced again in any of the existing books, so I suspect that it must be significant at some point in the remaining three. I suspect that the centaurs saw something along the line of Voldemort killing Harry (and so were reluctant to save Harry from Voldemort in the forest) and Trelawney saw Harry being Voldemort's downfall. The two predictions are not mutually exclusive, if you look at it the right way, Voldemort COULD kill Harry now, since he can now touch him, and that COULD have the effect of destroying Voldemort in the backlash. I somehow doubt that a frontal assault or trap will ever succeed against Voldemort, so it will have to be something subtle that he doesn't understand enough to plan to counter. JKR has certainly gone out of her way to drum into us the idea of the power of loving self-sacrifice, hasn't she? Supposedly we're going to see Harry finding out more about death in the books to come ... Fiat, who hopes, like Firenze, that this is one of those times -- 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 jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Sun Mar 10 15:23:12 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 09:23:12 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Why did Voldemort want to kill Harry? + Trelawney References: Message-ID: <3C8B7A60.F7C71F71@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36288 uncmark wrote: > 9 James dies after Lily, either from blood loss or the house falling > on him. This explains the order of the Potters in GofF when LV's wand > spits out victims. I think what you out is plausible, but I feel I need to correct one thing. The wand order in the first few editions are actually a mistake that have been corrected in later editions. My understanding is that James did die from the AK curse before Lily died. -Katze From tabouli at unite.com.au Sun Mar 10 15:43:04 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 02:43:04 +1100 Subject: Mrs "Methuselah" Norris, Kittygro Cocktail, Clothing Cop-Out, dead owls Message-ID: <007201c1c84a$698d7d60$c331c2cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 36289 Cindy: > Mmmmm. Welllll. Hmmmmm. I'm kinda having some trouble here. If Mrs. Norris is a witch involuntarily imprisoned in a cat's body, why would Dumbledore allow this to continue? Hogwarts is the safest place to be with a Dark Wizard like Voldemort running around, after all. Dumbledore could rescue Mrs. Norris by breaking the dastardly cat-spell, and allow her to live, uh, right there in Filch's quarters at Hogwarts. She'd still be perfectly safe.< Ahhh, but what if Mrs Norris was the uber-spy who out-Snaped Snape, out-wormed Wormtail, and sent dozens of Death-Eaters to a timely grave by sneakily passing on information gleaned from her wicked, wicked husband? What if (Tabouli wracks her brains for something which might tempt Cindy) ... She Led The Ambush?? OK, so then why is Snape allowed to stay human, whereas Mrs Norris has to live in a basket and eat Whiskas? (You find it hard to understand why an innocent woman would spend 10 years as a cat, so to speak?) Well. You see, Snape was never properly sprung. He started out as a Death-Eater and is still fawning on Draco, torturing students and being generally nasty to keep everyone guessing. We don't know for sure, but the contrast between his public and private behaviour suggests Voldemort may still think Snape's on his side or at least retrievable. Mrs Norris, on the other hand, was sprung like a mattress. *Everyone* knows she betrayed her husband to the good side. However, as evil Mr Norris was bumped off by Moody before he could tell anyone he'd cursed her into a cat (a fitting punishment because she hated cats, maybe?), they *don't* know he cursed her into a cat, and assume she is dead. Only Filch, Moody and Dumbledore know the truth, and they encouraged the rumour of her death to keep her safe until times become bad enough to take the risk. Cindy (whose funny feeling that Tabouli was not going to go for this tweak was uncannily accurate): > What if Mrs. Norris is a really, really old witch? (...) Filch (...) falls hard for Mrs. Norris, finding he can appreciate taking life at, uh, her rather slow pace. < > > Then Filch's own family decides she's not good enough for him, and they turn her into a cat in an effort to make him forget her. (...) Filch pleads with Dumbledore to break the spell, but he won't because transforming Mrs. Norris back into a witch will mean she has precious little time to live. Filch, grief-stricken, decides he'd rather have Mrs. Norris alive as a cat rather than dead as a witch.< Hmmmmmm (says Tabouli darkly, groping around for the can(n)on controls on her FLIRTIAC dinghy). Judging by the unexpectedly long life of clawless Scabbers, and the rehumanised fingerless Pettigrew in balding, chubby form, I'd say an Animagus in animal form ages at the same rate the human would normally and carried over all physical infirmities. Hence the 200yo cat form of Mrs Norris would probably be an arthritic, moth-eaten, toothless old cat reluctant to budge from her favorite sunbeam even for her daily serve of kitty-gruel, as close to death as Mrs Norris-human would be (rather than a one-cat assistant in espionage). Nice try, but no walking stick. Hang on a minute, the kitty-gruel's given me another sinister possibility which avoids the above issues... perhaps Mrs Norris was catified not by a curse, but by a Potion! Yeah!! Maybe Mr Norris wasn't a vengeful volcano after all, but a foul, festering schemer, Head of the Experimental Potions Department. He found out what she was up to, but he decided to bide his time, lull her into that ol' sense of security while he brewed up a killer Kittygro Cocktail based on the Polyjuice Potion, and slipped it into her pumpkin juice. Lo and behold, she turned into a cat by a means for which there was No Known Antidote! Bwa ha ha! And so fall all catty women who cheat on The Norris! However, unbeknownst to Mr Norris, his young assistant Snape was not all he seemed. Mr Norris, recognising Snape's unusual talents, collaborated with him extensively in the development of the Kittgro Cocktail, assuming that Snape, a fellow Death-Eater, would applaud its use for Evil Ends. Snape, however, was already spying for Dumbledore (having had a crisis prompted by the Potterkill Plot), and couldn't help wondering, between heroic attempts to protect the Potters, what his bwa-ha-ha-ing boss was brewing. Knowing that Mrs Norris was likewise a secret ally of the Good Side, he fears the worst when his boss seizes the completed Cocktail one day muttering "this'll show her, the catty little spy" and Apparates. He swiftly pieces it together, summons Dumbledore, Apparates to the Norris house and arrives just as Mrs Norris is finishing her pumpkin juice and before Mr Norris can kick her into a sack and drown her (the way he drowned her pet cat weeks earlier). He and Dumbledore obliviate Mr Norris and pack him off to Azkaban, and take the cat back to the safety of Hogwarts. Dumbledore, specialist in Transfiguration (as we know), tries to fix her but fails. Snape explains about the Kittygro Cocktail, and how Mr Norris especially designed it to have irreversible effects (and alas, what Potions do, only Potions can undo). Dumbledore shakes his head sadly, and tells Snape that once the Potters are out of danger, he will hire him as Potions Teacher, so that he has the time and resources to research a cure. Snape goes off to cover up Mr Norris' disappearance from the Ministry and continue his spying, Dumbledore goes with a heavy heart to tell Mrs Norris' devoted lover Filch the news. Filch, of course, is devastated. He begs Dumbledore to be allowed to work at Hogwarts, so he can be with his beloved in her darkest hour. As he is a Squib, the only position Dumbledore can offer is caretaker, which he takes up sadly, his catified lover teaming up with him to keep her spying paw in for the day Snape (who returned to Hogwarts devastated after Lily's death to become Potions master) finds a cure. Far-fetched, I hear you say? Where's the canon, I hear you say? (Tabouli unleashes not one, not two, but *four* can(n)ons, One From Each Book!) 1. Filch and Snape are, so far as we can see, the most anti-social people in Hogwarts. Surly, bitter bullies both, but with something that looks suspiciously like a *friendship*. Perhaps the touching scene in PS/SS where Filch (!) is tending Snape's Fluffy bites is not just bitter bully bonding. No, it's empathy and reciprocation at work! Both turned from sour to bitter after losing their lovers in the war with Voldemort. Moreover, Filch knows that Snape not only knows about his tragic secret, but is devoting hours of research to the one thing that matters most to him in the world... curing Mrs Norris. (Could even Snape and Filch not be friends under such circumstances?) 2. In CoS, Hermione accidentally puts a cat hair in her Polyjuice Potion, and ends up in a semi-cat form not for an hour, but for several *weeks*. What could this be but *foreshadowing* the perils of mixing cats into transformation potions for future reference? Sounds like a case for the Department of Experimental Potions to me... a bit of tweaking, and a Kittygro Cocktail with irreversible effects is well within the bounds of possibility, I say. 3. We *know* that Snape is a Potion-maker of rare expertise aware of recent developments in the area, because in PoA he makes the Wolfsbane Potion for Lupin. We also know that Potions is considered a bit of a poor cousin to the average "foolish wand waver", and that few wizards (Dumbledore, despite his power, included?) bother to master it. Hence it's quite plausible that no-one would know how to reverse a potion-induced curse, and that Snape could be assigned to research a cure. 4. In GoF, when (IIRC) Snape is snarling at Harry for Stealing Polyjuice Ingredients (triggering Snape's memory of the Norris incident), he suggests that he might one day slip a little Veritaserum into Harry's pumpkin juice. A mere throwaway line? Or a strategy Snape has seen used before to devastating effect?? I think the evidence before us is clear, ladies and gentlemen, so much so that I might take some time out from LOLLIPOPS and rewrite the FLIRTIAC manual... The Charismatic Charis: > So, Peter left his robes behind him when he transformed. * Was* he naked in the Shrieking Shack then? Ugh, ugh, shakes self violently trying to rid brain of horrible new envisioning of scene. Nope. Won't work. Stuck with it. Bother.(...) > > OK, so maybe an Animagi can either keep or loose their clothes depending on what suites their needs? Pettigrew wanted to leave his robes behind as evidence that he'd been blasted to bits, whereas Sirius clearly prefers to remain dressed. Or maybe a wizard can conjure up clothes and instantly dress himself * while* he's turning back into a human, sort of in the same way Dumbledore magics up sleeping bags or Black makes heavy manacles appear out of nowhere.< It's the Clothing Cop-Out, I say! Cop - Out! The Author's Convenience Clause! Spectacle marks, schmectacle marks. All this wussy, toe-in-the-water "their clothes and everything they're carrying conveniently vanish into a parallel dimension and reappear in human form" claptrap. Tcha! Nope, I say if you go in, you go in all the way. A fantasy author who wants to put in Animagi should summon the gumption to deal with The Nudity Issue, IMO. Surely it's the *body* that transforms. Clothes are not part of the body, and wands in a pocket *definitely* aren't. Sure, it'll take a bit of imagination to get around this (vision of Sirius pattering about with a bundle of clothes in his mouth), but hey, if Superman can have his telephone booths, I'm sure fantasy authors who can write their worlds however they like can come up with *something*... (as I long ago mentioned, I got very cynical at the scene in the Belgariad when Garion asks Belgarath if it's safe to transform into a wolf and have his clothes and the Orb floating about "unattached"... aw, honestly, I thought, where could be safer than an inaccessible parallel dimension of convenience?) Eloise: >> Elkins, who simply cannot *bear* the thought of murdered pets. > Err...would this be the same Elkins who sports featherboas made > from murdered owls? Or am I confusing you with someone else? Rita: >Not Elkins's fault: it was Tabouli who draped her with bloody feathers Ahaaa, yes, but only because I thought a garment born of bloodshed was fitting for a Trio (Cindy, Elkins, Eileen) bouncing on a sofa with chilling chants of "Bloody Ambush! Bloody Ambush!". At the time she feigned hysterics, but I ask you... did she cast aside her fiendish feathery fronds? Did she renounce her violent ways? Alas no, in fact, she seems to have come to appreciate the flair and warmth of her new accessories, and no longer seems to give a hoot for the owls I sacrificed for her style. If the FEATHERBOAS fit, wear 'em, seems to be her new motto... Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tabouli at unite.com.au Sun Mar 10 16:52:12 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 03:52:12 +1100 Subject: FLIRTIAC a la Kittygro Cocktail (addendum) Message-ID: <00bf01c1c854$0fc71d40$c331c2cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 36290 Ahaaa! I thought of yet *another* piece of canon evidence for the new, improved, Kittygro Cocktail FLIRTIAC from CoS! In fact, I think I may even have hit on one of those increasingly rare moments... a *NEW* (and, er, reasonably serious) canon-based interpretation! (Tabouli knows how bold a claim this is, but forges on bravely nonetheless...) OK, so the Basilisk left behind by Salazar is being sneaked out by his Heir out through the sink, aiming to rid the school of Muggle-Borns. Later he moves on to target Harry, of course, but at the start he's definitely after Muggle-Borns. Now, let's consider this for a moment. Why didn't ol' Salazar like Muggle-Borns? Because he didn't trust Muggles, thought they were a danger to wizards, and therefore by extension their magical offspring were dangerous, and would have potentially perilous mixed loyalties. Enemies in our midst, et al. However, you will of course note that Binns made *no mention whatsoever* of Squibs. What would Salazar (and, presumably, Voldemort) think of Squibs? Well, not much, I'd guess. OK, so you could argue that in Salazar's eyes a Squib *is* basically a Muggle, and therefore an enemy by default. However, it's a bit of a stretch to see Squibs on a par with Muggle-borns in terms of threat to the Wizarding World. For a start, they are the children of two Wizards. They are *born* into the Wizarding community. Even if the Wizarding World marginalises them, they're unlikely to grow up understanding and embracing the despised Muggledom under these circumstances. Moreover, they have No Power. Where's the threat in that? (Muggle-borns are dangerous because they *have* power, they can compete with Pureblood Wizards on an equal footing yet may have lingering loyalty to the Muggles whence they came.) Finally, judging by Neville's comments about being magical enough to go to Hogwarts, Squibs wouldn't be a major issue in Hogwarts anyway, because they wouldn't be admitted to the school! So. If we accept that Squibs are an unlikely first target for Salazar, the events in CoS look odd indeed. Why, when the school is teeming with menacing Muggle-borns, is the *first* creature to be attacked by a Basilisk wielding Tom Riddle not a Muggle-born but, *apparently*, a mere cat? Sure, JKR throws us off the scent with Neville's fears "They went for Filch first, and everyone knows I'm almost a Squib". All the same, it's a bit odd, isn't it? Why bother with Squibs when Muggle-borns are far more dangerous? And even if Squibs really *are* as much for the chop as Muggle-borns, why on earth attack the Squib's cat and not the Squib? Dramatic build-up from animal to human victims? Gahhh, why bother. On the other hand... ...what if Mrs Norris isn't really just "the Squib's cat"? What if she's really a Muggle-born witch, turned irreversibly into a cat by her Death-Eater husband, who, on learning he was being cuckolded by Filch, slipped Kittygro Cocktail potion into her pumpkin juice? Sure, the students at Hogwarts think she's just a cat. In fact, nearly all the staff at Hogwarts think she's a cat. However, methinks her espionage for Filch is just a bit too good for an ordinary feline brain. And Filch is, judging by his horror in CoS when she's attacked, *EXTREMELY* attached to her, an attachment which Dumbledore himself treats with understanding and reverence. And then, of course, there's the ol' favorite... like Pettigrew (and, on available evidence, *un*like other animals who are really animals), she does turn up on that Marauders' Map, doesn't she? *And* she's a known enemy of Voldemort's side. Therefore, the reason why Tom sicked the Basilisk on Mrs Norris first could be because (a) the Basilisk's inbuilt Muggle-born detection device immediately picked her for what she really was, and maybe also (b) Tom Riddle had heard about Mrs Norris from Ginny, recognised the name (could Mr Norris have been one of the closest friends at school sycophantic enough to call him Lord Voldemort?) and, when the Mug-o-meter went off for a mere cat, pieced together the truth... this was no pet, but a Muggle-born enemy of the Cause! Heh heh heh... I think I might start extending this FLIRTIAC dinghy o' mine. I'm starting to convince myself it might hold a lot more cargo than I originally thought... Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skelkins at attbi.com Sun Mar 10 19:15:19 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 19:15:19 -0000 Subject: Sartorial blind-spots, Animagi clothing, Sirius' motorcycle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36291 There does seem to be a great deal of sartorial inconsistency in the books (if the Weasleys are so oblivious to the ways of the Muggles, then why does Harry only recognize them as a wizarding family when he overhears mention of Platform Nine and Three-Quarters? Shouldn't he have known this instantly from their bizarre form of dress? Do the students wear those pointy hats to all their classes or don't they? Is a robeless Hogwarts student indecently-exposed or isn't he? How do you manage to straddle a broomstick in floor-length robes? And so forth.) The animagus question is just one of a long list. My gut feeling about JKR as a writer is that she doesn't tend to visualize clothing very much at all when she imagines the scenes to herself. Descriptions of clothing in the books are rare, and where they appear, they are quite sparse. Unless the the author is going out of her way to make a point about someone's form of dress, she rarely thinks to mention what people are wearing at all. Fudge's gaily-colored ensemble merits some description, as do Hagrid's awful suit and the dress robes people wear to the Yule Ball. There is quite a bit of sartorial description in the QWC segment of GoF. But generally speaking, there just isn't very much emphasis on clothing in the text. I get the impression that JKR is simply not terribly interested in clothing (unlike food, which clearly is something that interests her and that plays a large role in her visualization of the fictive world). So when it comes to Shrieking Shack, for example, my suspicion is that it didn't occur to the author to specify whether or not Pettigrew was dressed because what the characters were wearing played very little role in her own visualization of that scene. She may, indeed, simply not have considered the question. Sirius' ratty grey robes did occur to her, because his role as "convict" was important, and so the appropriate clothing for that role leapt to her mind. Pettigrew's dress (or lack thereof), on the other hand, was something that she may well just never have thought to consider. This may seem strange to people who are interested in and attentive to clothing. To me, it seems perfectly natural. As both a reader and a writer, I know that while I always visualize things like facial expression and body language and landscape in photographically vivid detail, I often fail to visualize clothing at all. This is likely related to my oblivion to clothing in real life: I am remarkably inattentive to what people are wearing; unless they are indecently- exposed or in some truly bizarre get-up, like a period costume, I rarely notice their clothing. (This makes me absolutely useless as a witness, as became all too clear when the police asked me questions about a con-man who had tried to pull a scam at our store and upon failing, fled the scene. "Well, all right, then. Was what he was wearing dark or light?" "Um...I'm sorry. I really just didn't notice.") Whenever sartorial issues come up on this list, I find myself wondering if JKR might not suffer from a similar blind spot. Charis Julia wrote: > So, Peter left his robes behind him when he transformed. * Was* he > naked in the Shrieking Shack then? Ugh, ugh, shakes self violently > trying to rid brain of horrible new envisioning of scene. Nope. > Won't work. Stuck with it. Bother. Ugh. You know, I have to admit that it never once occurred to me to wonder what Pettigrew was wearing in Shrieking Shack. And you know what else? In this particular case, ignorance really was bliss. I could, I think, have lived very happily for the rest of my life without ever being forced to contemplate the possibility that the poor wretch was actually stark naked throughout that scene, or (even worse) being forced to try to *visualize* it that way. So thank *you,* HPFGU. Thanks a whole *lot.* No. Ugh, no, that's just far too degrading. I balk at the concept. My imagination goes on strike; the shutter on my mental camera refuses to click; I instinctively avert my inner eye. I simply cannot bring myself to go there. Therefore, I am forced to deduce that Pettigrew must have been clothed. So there. That's settled, then. Charis wrote: > By the way, one thing I've always wondered. Why did Sirius tell > Hagrid he wouldn't be needing the motorcycle any more? The only > explanation that I can come up with is that, in a blinding rage > that had possessed him and half unhinged by grief, he really does > intend to murder Pettigrew. Oh, yeah, actually we know that for a > fact, he says so at the end of PoA. So, he knew he would be caught > and sent to Azkaban, but had no problem facing the prospect if it > was necessary in order to avenge his friends death. That was always my understanding. He was slightly unhinged at the time, and he wasn't thinking too clearly; he felt as if his life were over. There's a tinge of the suicidal there, to be sure -- giving away cherished possessions, you know. Never a good sign. > Except that, well, all this doesn't fit in too well with my > perception of wizarding justice at all. Surely in the post? > Voldemort years a man would be honoured for bringing in a Death > Eater, not hauled off to prison. But there would have been no way for Sirius to prove his story, would there? If we assume (as I think that we must) that for whatever reason, veritaserum was not being used for such purposes at that time, then it would have come down to Sirius' word. He didn't expect that anyone would believe him. > Moody doesn't seem to have been punished for killing Rosier, does > he? Ah, but that's different. Moody was an Auror, with a licence to kill. He was authorized to identify people as Dark Wizards and to take violent action against them. Sirius was not. The wizarding world may be a bit anarchic, but it nonetheless does seem to draw a distinction between vigilante justice and the activities of the duly-authorized representatives of the judicial system. -- Elkins From skelkins at attbi.com Sun Mar 10 19:44:11 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 19:44:11 -0000 Subject: Chess Game, Snape's spying career In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36292 Chelsea wrote: > I don't knw much about chess, so I'm not sure exactly how > significant the knight piece is. However, Ron taking the knight > piece, and valiantly sacrificing himself to help his friends, seems > a very powerful thing to do. You know, I've always wondered about Ron taking the knight's position as well. Ron's obviously a very good chess player. So why would he have chosen to take the place of a *knight?* I am not very good at chess myself, but I have played enough of the game to know that the knights are, well... Well, there's just no nice way to say this. They're pieces that one often chooses to sacrifice. But I agree with Chelsea's implication that the symbolism was probably more on JKR's mind there than the actual strategy. All the same, as an in-character action, it has always bothered me a bit. Taking the part of one of the knights was wiser than taking the place of one of the pawns, admittedly -- but it still would have been safer for Ron to clamber up into a castle. Or, for that matter, just to play the king. I said that I shared Athena's perplexity over Dumbledore's decision to pronounce Snape's agent role to the crowded tribunal. David wrote: > My view is that this is because Dumbledore considered that Snape's > spying career was, and still is, over. Even so, though, surely Dumbledore's pronouncement could have placed Snape at far greater risk from other (still at-large) Death Eaters? He makes the pronouncement during Karkaroff's plea bargain, at a time when the Ministry clearly believes that there are many Death Eaters not only still at large, but also as-yet unidentified. For that matter, he makes the pronouncement after it has become clear that there might still be Death Eater moles within the very ministry itself! It just seemed a bit...inconsiderate to me. For that matter, what about all of the DEs who gained aquittal on the grounds of Imperius? As far as I've been able to reconstruct the timeline of events here, Lucius Malfoy was probably already a free man at the time of Karkaroff's hearing, as likely were a number of the other DEs we know to have been aquitted (Avery, Nott, Crabbe, Goyle). I very much doubt that Dumbledore ever attached much credence to Lucius Malfoy's claims of innocence. At the time of Karkaroff's hearing, he must have known that there were Death Eaters who would likely never be brought to justice. Why place Snape at risk of acts of retribution from his former colleagues by making his pronouncement in what seems to be such a (relatively) public milieu? Did Dumbledore really have faith in the discretion of all two hundred or so of the people in that room? Did he feel confident that not one of the walked-free Death Eaters would be willing to risk his own safety by trying to get a bit of payback on a traitor? Did he figure that all of the DEs had to know the score already, so a public pronouncement couldn't possibly do any more damage? Or did he just want to ensure that poor Severus would never be able to feel comfortable setting foot outside of Hogwarts again, or be able to socialize with those who might prove a Bad Influence on him? ;-) I realize, of course, that the scene is probably just written that way because it makes for a more dramatic moment. But all the same, it does make me wonder. -- Elkins From catlady at wicca.net Sun Mar 10 19:53:02 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 19:53:02 -0000 Subject: The Potters' Profession // Mrs. Norris the Auror or Spy // Basilisk Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36293 Lizzy Gizzy wrote: > One thing that JKR did reveal is that James had inherited a great > wealth and "did not have to work." I suppose that doesn't mean he > did not work, but she seemed to indicate that he had a life of > leisure. Leisure = unpaid work? I feel certain that the Potters were top-ability operatives in the fight against Voldemort, which does not necessarily mean they were Aurors. They could have been working for the Ministry as Aurors, Unspeakables, or whatever, or they could have skipped the Ministry and been working directly for the Resistance (maybe 'the old gang', maybe named The League Against Voldemort or The Order of the Phoenix) under Dumbledore. I wonder whether the the Resistance paid salaries -- where would the money come from? If they were working for the Ministry, they could have been helping as "talented amateurs" (who remembers Emma Peel?) or Sickle-a-year persons (in Muggle USA, dollar-a-year men, the most recent example I know of is Los Angeles's recently termed-out Mayor Riordan: having made a hundred million dollars in leveraged buy-outs, he announced that he would save the taxpayers' money by not accepting his salary as mayor, except for one dollar a year to make the employment contract legal). As unpaid workers, they could have, like so many beloved fictional characters, had 'cover identities' as idle rich who cared only about parties and fashion, or it could have been fairly well-known that they were helping the Ministry or the Resistance. The first thought is that all Resistance operatives would keep it a secret: announcing it is like painting a target on their backs. But second thought is, no more of a target than working for the Ministry without being a Dark Side secret operative. If Crouch Sr could live in his home with his House Elf despite being a target, so could the young Potters. They could rely on their magical guards and wards (giving yet another aspect to Snape's sneer about Harry's father's 'arrogance') -- they had BETTER have reliable magical guards and wards, because they would be a target ANYWAY, just for being talented (Head Boy and Head Girl) and having turned down the inevitable Dark Side recruitment offers. The only operatives who need to keep their Resistance affiliation secret are the Spies. ------------------------------------ A few sentences of fanfic: James: "What kind of idiot would think I might even consider joining a movement whose goal is to murder MY WIFE?" Death Eater: "An idiot who knows that you could make a deal to exempt your wife in exchange for your loyal service." Lily: "What kind of idiot would think I might even consider joining a movement that wants to enslave and torture MY PARENTS?" Death Eater: "If you were helpful to the Dark Side, you could be in a position to protect your parents." ------------------------------------ Tabouli wrote: > Well. You see, Snape was never properly sprung. He started out as a > Death-Eater and is still fawning on Draco, torturing students and > being generally nasty to keep everyone guessing. We don't know for > sure, but the contrast between his public and private behaviour > suggests Voldemort may still think Snape's on his side or at least > retrievable. How can Voldemort have failed to learn that Snape was outed in a courtroom before some 200 witnesses? Even if Rita Skeeter wasn't covering Karkaroff's clemency hearing (I can't think what else to call it), out of 200 spectators/jurors, surely some would babble. > he'd cursed her into a cat (a fitting punishment because she hated > cats, maybe?) (snip) (the way he drowned her pet cat weeks earlier). Tabouli wrote: > What if she's really a Muggle-born witch, turned irreversibly into > a cat by her Death-Eater husband, Why would a Death Eater marry a Mudblood? Like a Klansman marrying a (black person) or a Nazi marrying a (Jew). > OK, so the Basilisk left behind by Salazar is being sneaked out by > his Heir out through the sink, aiming to rid the school of > Muggle-Borns. Personally, I don't believe that the Basilisk can be aimed, and that it catching only Muggle-borns (NHN?) was as big a co-incidence as it merely petrifying them instead of killing them. From frodoyoda at aol.com Sun Mar 10 20:20:28 2002 From: frodoyoda at aol.com (frodoyoda_2000) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 20:20:28 -0000 Subject: Chess Game, Snape's spying career In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36294 Elkins wrote: > I said that I shared Athena's perplexity over Dumbledore's decision > to pronounce Snape's agent role to the crowded tribunal. > Did Dumbledore really have faith in the discretion of all two hundred > or so of the people in that room? Did he feel confident that not one > of the walked-free Death Eaters would be willing to risk his own > safety by trying to get a bit of payback on a traitor? Did he figure > that all of the DEs had to know the score already, so a public > pronouncement couldn't possibly do any more damage? Or did he just > want to ensure that poor Severus would never be able to feel > comfortable setting foot outside of Hogwarts again, or be able to > socialize with those who might prove a Bad Influence on him? ;-) > > I realize, of course, that the scene is probably just written that > way because it makes for a more dramatic moment. But all the same, > it does make me wonder. > > > -- Elkins I've often wondered about Dumbledore's lack of discretion in the court myself. It does seem like D is placing Snape in needless danger by declaring that he's D's spy, as well as rendering him totally ineffective. In my ponderings it occured to me that there could very well be something like a Confidentiality Charm on the court. That way it could prevent the people in the court room from repeating anything that could endanger an innocent, like Snape. After all, I don't believe we've ever heard anyone *really* discuss what went on in the court. Harry learned about it in the pensieve, not through direct conversation, and although they discuss it later, I don't *think* that Dumbledore explicitly told Harry anything that would only have been learned in the court. And if he did, well, maybe the pensieve experience rendered Harry 'in the know' enough that Dumbledore could discuss it with him. I've even got some (if rather flimsy) canon to back this up. Rita Skeeter says to Harry in GoF that 'I know things about Ludo Bagman that could make your hair curl.', or something to that effect. Harry saw her at Bagman's trial and surmised that Bagman's proported DE activities were what Rita was referring to. Assuming Harry was right, why didn't she *tell* him, or write an article making it public. Certainly not out of discretion or integrity. It *must* have been the charm. :) Ok, that was my two knuts on the subject, Molly From porphyria at mindspring.com Sun Mar 10 23:43:34 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 15:43:34 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's spying career In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36295 Regarding Dumbledore's revelation of Snape's spying career in the Pensieve scene, Elkins wrote: > Even so, though, surely Dumbledore's pronouncement could have placed > Snape at far greater risk from other (still at-large) Death Eaters?? > He makes the pronouncement during Karkaroff's plea bargain, at a time > when the Ministry clearly believes that there are many Death Eaters > not only still at large, but also as-yet unidentified.? For that > matter, he makes the pronouncement after it has become clear that > there might still be Death Eater moles within the very ministry > itself!? It just seemed a bit...inconsiderate to me. I've heard other people theorize that perhaps everyone in the Pensieve was put under a secrecy charm, but that may be a little pat. Still, in defense of Dumbledore, I think it's possible that all 200 of the wizards at Karkaroff's hearing already knew that Snape was cleared because he was a spy. I'm not sure if this is new information to any of them at the time. When Karkaroff mentions Snape, it is Crouch Sr. who first sniffs: "Snape has been cleared by this council...He has been vouched for by Albus Dumbledore." He says cleared by "this council" which makes me think the council members could be the exact same 200 people present. Plus, there is no mention of any buzz of murmurs rushing through the crowd the way there was just before when Karkaroff mentioned Rookwood. So maybe it's old news to them. Lastly, when Dumbledore stands to say that he has "already" given evidence in the matter, he does it "calmly" as if he's merely reminding everyone. He doesn't seem pressed as you'd think he would be if he were trying to convince people. Well, that leaves a couple of problems, such as potential moles in the Ministry. But still, if there's a mole amongst these 200, they might already know all about Snape. The other question might be why is Dumbledore so nonchalant about letting the likes of Karkaroff know that Snape was a spy per se. All I can think of here is that maybe Dumbledore figured that since Karkaroff had just sung like a bird that his own status amongst the former DEs would be even worse than Snape's; at least Snape can theoretically claim that he duped Dumbledore into believing he was a spy. Karkaroff pretty much has to exile himself to the unplottable Durmstrang to avoid his old DE buddies. (Well, that's the way I imagine it. Karkaroff certainly tends to run from his troubles. ;-)) After the initial fall of Voldemort, Dumbledore apparently had to do *something* to keep Snape from going to Azkaban. The implication is certainly that Snape was spying for Dumbledore personally, and not in any official capacity for the MOM. The MOM performed some sort of hearing or investigation or something into Snape that required D's testimony to get him cleared (it's not stated that Snape was arrested and put on trial, but it seems that the MOM could have if they'd felt the need to). So Dumbledore might have been more or less forced to spill the beans semi-publicly then. Putting Snape's life in danger from a bunch of former DE's who have their own reputations to restore is still better than letting him go to prison. I myself haven't ruled out the possibility that Snape is more or less stuck at Hogwarts because he's safer there. We never see him go out for a drink at Hogsmeade with his fellow heads of house. We certainly never bump into him in Diagon alley or at the Quidditch World Cup. Apart from the Shack incident, does he go off campus ever? Also, I'm in the camp that refuses to believe that at the end of GoF he was sent back to rejoin the DEs so as to spy again. I think that the fact that Harry has already pondered as much is enough to rule the possibility out. :-) So maybe it's sort of OK if some people know he at least claimed to be a spy. Sort of. I've also argued that I don't think it's common knowledge that he was a spy or a DE at all, so maybe the 200 wizards in the Pensieve could keep a secret after all. I guess we'll see.... ~~Porphyria [I'm the arbiter, I know the score From square one I'll be watching all 64] Dammit, Elkins, now you've got that whole soundtrack stuck in my head!!! :-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From magicalme at comcast.net Sun Mar 10 21:00:43 2002 From: magicalme at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 21:00:43 -0000 Subject: The Trial of Severus Snape (WAS Chess Game, Snape's spying career) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36296 Elkins wrote (about Dumbledore's Pensieve announcement of Snape's spying): > Even so, though, surely Dumbledore's pronouncement could have placed > Snape at far greater risk from other (still at-large) Death Eaters? Not necessarily. I suspect that Snape's spying activities were common knowledge by the time of Karkaroff's plea bargain. Well, common knowledge to everyone who wasn't already in Azkaban, anyway. You see, canon tells us that Dumbledore stands up in Karkaroff's plea bargain with no hesitation and says Snape is a spy. No one reacts with surprise, except Karkaroff. No gasps from the crowd, no startled expressions, nothing. Dumbledore speaks "calmly." Crouch is "disdainful." Moody wears a look of "deep skepticism." That's because Snape's spying career is yesterday's news in the wizarding world. The only reason Dumbledore stands up for Snape is to re- affirm his loyalty to Snape, so that no one will think he has changed his mind about Snape. There's something missing here, though. It's . . . it's . . . a wild and improbable backstory! We need a backstory of how it came to be common knowledge that Snape is a spy, and it needs to be a really Big Bang. Did Snape give interviews to Rita Skeeter? Did Snape just trickle out the details of his spying to his friends over a pint, and it just kind of leaked out slowly? Hardly. I think Snape was put on trial, and Dumbledore vouched for Snape as part of that public proceeding. Snape's trial would have been immediately after the Potters were killed. At the persistent urging of Moody (and hopefully Lupin), MoM thought Snape was the traitor in Dumbledore's camp who betrayed the Potters. Dumbledore was backed into a corner and had to testify that Sirius was the Potters' Secretkeeper, not Snape. That was the only way to save Snape from living his worst nightmares in Azkaban (which I imagine must involve shampoo). Dumbledore must explain Snape's spying career and -- this is the painful part -- give evidence against loyal-as-a-dog Sirius. Dumbledore might even have had to explain his little deal where Snape arranged the Ambush. ::tosses FEATHERBOA over shoulder with flair, twirls rather superfluous cape:: Now, I'm a little concerned about my timeline, because Snape would have to be placed on trial quickly if the three Pensieve scenes are going to fit together. Fortunately for me, trials in the wizarding world take about 10 minutes. So I think we have time for Karkaroff's plea bargain shortly after Voldemort falls, right after Snape's trial. The other worrisome detail is why Crouch would give Snape a trial and not give Sirius one. Actually, this bit kind of works. Sirius went to Azkaban for killing Pettigrew and the muggles, not for betraying the Potters. In PoA, Fudge says the worst Sirius did wasn't widely known. So Snape got a trial only because they didn't have enough proof to lock him up without it. I also like this idea because it explains Dumbledore's decision to give evidence against Sirius. I've always wondered why he did it. Dumbledore apparently gave this evidence without even speaking with Sirius to hear his side of the story. That doesn't sound like Albus. Why, then? Because Dumbledore had to do something to save Snape, and because wizard trials happen in the blink of an eye, Dumbledore didn't have time to, uh, actually get his facts straight or anything. Oh, yeah. I'm feeling a definite Bang coming on. Cindy (smiling as she imagines Moody arresting Snape and dragging him kicking, screaming and weeping before the Department of Magical Law Enforcement) From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sun Mar 10 21:00:58 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 21:00:58 -0000 Subject: I'm baaack... and a FILK: Azkaban Cell Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36297 Wow, you guys sure posted a lot while I was off on vacation. While I'm catching up, here's a filk I wrote on the plane home from London: Azkaban Cell to the tune of Heartbreak Hotel Scene: a cell in Azkaban (Duh!). Mrs. LeStrange is singing about her fate. MRS. LESTRANGE: Well, since the Dark Lord's left us I've been sentenced to this hell, Surrounded by Dementor guards in An Azkaban cell. It gets so gloomy in here, It gets so gloomy, It gets so gloomy, I could scream. The corridors are crowded With Dementors giving flak To all the true Death Eaters And that loser Sirius Black. It gets so gloomy in here, It gets so gloomy, It gets so gloomy, I could scream. The inmates' screams are ringing, We all feel oh-so-blue, We've been so long in Azkaban, Our brains have turned to glue. It gets so gloomy in here, It gets so gloomy, It gets so gloomy, I could scream. Hey now, if the Aurors catch you And your Lord you will not sell, You'll spend your life locked up in here in An Azkaban cell. You'll feel so gloomy in here, You'll geel so gloomy, You'll feel so gloomy that you'll scream. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From catlady at wicca.net Sun Mar 10 21:08:54 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 21:08:54 -0000 Subject: Snape's spying career --- Bagman's spying career In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36298 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Molly wrote: > I've even got some (if rather flimsy) canon to back this up. Rita > Skeeter says to Harry in GoF that 'I know things about Ludo Bagman > that could make your hair curl.', or something to that effect. > Harry saw her at Bagman's trial and surmised that Bagman's > proported DE activities were what Rita was referring to. Assuming > Harry was right, why didn't she *tell* him, or write an article > making it public. Certainly not out of discretion or integrity. It > *must* have been the charm. :) I had the vague impression that Skeeter meant she knew MORE about Bagman than had come out at the trial (e.g. that he really had joined up with the Dark Side). She didn't tell Harry (or Hermione, or whomever she had made that statement to) because heesh didn't ask, and I don't know that Skeeter would give information away just for the gratification of being begged for it: she might have demanded something more in exchange for the info. I had assumed that Skeeter had published news reportage of the Bagman trial. That was long ago and he was cleared; Harry doesn't read old newspapers and the history books Hermione reads wouldn't have listed ALL the people who were cleared, so the kids didn't know about it. Even if her news reportage was straight, the news wasn't a very big deal: the popular Ludo Bagman was accused of being a Dark Side spy, but the jury found that he had only been too trusting and foolishly loose-lipped, so he was found innocent and continued his Quidditch career. Soon the public forget the 'false' accusation and remembered only the Quidditch triumphs. If her reportage was slanted, it would have been slanted pro-Bagman, ecause slanting it anti-Bagman would have made her very unpopular. News slanted pro-Bagman would have emphasized that the false accusation was made out of malice, not ignorant error, by someone who was jealous of him, that the information he was accused of leaking had been terribly trivial, and that it was he who revealed the dangerous Death Eater spy Rookwood. Which reminds me: WHAT useful information could a QUIDDITCH PLAYER have that a MINISTRY INSIDER didn't already have? All I can think of is that important but foolish Ministry wizards, from important departments other than the one Rookwood was in, invited him to their dinner parties (where he was something for them to show off) and then talked shop in front of him, forgetful of their non-disclosure agreements. From magicalme at comcast.net Sun Mar 10 21:12:53 2002 From: magicalme at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 21:12:53 -0000 Subject: Animagus Transformation & Naked Wizards (WAS Sartorial blind-spots, ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36299 Elkins wrote: >You know, I have to admit that it never once occurred to me to > wonder what Pettigrew was wearing in Shrieking Shack. Not to worry. There's plenty of evidence that Animagi keep their clothes. ::pauses to imagine McGonagall in her birthday suit on the wall on Privet Drive and in the classroom in PoA:: Well, if there isn't evidence, we need to find it *right now*. I think Peter dropped a spare set of robes, because he knew that his own robes would go with him when he transformed. Yes, that's it. I actually think JKR's handling of animagi transformation makes some sense. The wizard keeps everything personal to the wizard (glasses, robes). The wizard keeps all magical items, also. This is how Lupin still has the invisibility cloak when he becomes a wolf (yes, I know that's not an animagus transformation) and how McGonagall keeps her wand. So where is Pettigrew's wand? It should have transformed with him, but he appears not to have it. That's, uh, because he set his wand on self-destruct, see. He didn't just blow a hole in the street with his wand. He's a weak, talentless thing, right Sirius? Pettigrew had his wand blow *itself* up. He yells out, then he drops the wand, transforms, scurries, and then the wand explodes before the muggles know what hit them. Now *that* would generate some seriously lethal magical energy. So they never found Pettigrew's wand because it no longer exists. Cindy (not eager to imagine Rita Skeeter in the altogether, either) From trog at wincom.net Sun Mar 10 20:49:23 2002 From: trog at wincom.net (talondg) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 20:49:23 -0000 Subject: The Gleam & the Hiss In-Reply-To: <20020308212537.39039.qmail@web11101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36300 > Cindy suggested: > > Apparently, Crouch/Moody attaches some significance to the use of > Harry's blood. I think it's reasonable to conclude that Moody does > not believe the use of Harry's blood is Voldemort's fatal error. And the reason why is simple: Voldy wanted Harry's blood over all else. Crouch Jr. was obsessed with being Voldy's "most faithful servant" and would have done anything to get whatever his master desired. You don't question Voldy; you do what he says. If Voldy sez Harry's blood is signifigant, then it is. Case closed as far as Crouch Jr is concerned. > That means Crouch/Moody (and by extension, Voldemort) believes that > using Harry's blood is not a fatal error for the Dark Side. Why > would Crouch/Moody and Voldemort, both smart, talented, experienced > Dark Wizards come to the exact opposite conclusion as Dumbledore? I think the amswer to this question is answered by another: "Why didn't the reflected Avra Kedavra curse KILL Voldy?" AK KILLS without defense - at least, that what it is supposed to do at least. If it was purely reflected, then it should have struck Voldy dead; go to jail, do not collect $200 But that didn't happen - something else did. Amongst other things, it seems to have somehow tied Harry and Voldy together somehow. Harry's scar hurts when Voldy is around or doing something nasty. Harry's "natural wand attenuation" seems identical to Voldy's, to the point where Voldy's "brother wand" chooses Harry. Harry is a Paseltoungue. The Sorting Hat nearly puts him in Slytherin. And so on and so forth. If it wasn't for the fact that we already know otherwise, I'd be strongly tempeted to claim that Harry was Voldy's SON, as the Luke Skywalker/Darth Vader element is so strong. I'm pretty sure that Voldy is unaware of the depth and nature of this tying together (being denied the opportunity to observe Harry much) whereas Dumbledore most certainly is. Dumbledore has information that Voldy does not. Voldy states in GoF that he wants Harry's blood for two reasons. The first is to conclusively demonstrate that his previous defeat was a fluke, and that Harry has no special ablility over him. The second is that he figures that Harry's protection (from his mother's sacrifice) is carried in Harry's blood. Voldy collects defenses. It's possible that one of them saved him from his own curse (at least, he thinks so, and we don't have enough info to be able to know otherwise) and so he's keen to lay hands on more of them - each defense is another layer of armour, and this one in particular helps him be able to hurt Harry as a nice side-effect. But it seems that perhaps that is NOT the case, and the use of Harry's blood perhaps does NOT have the effect that he thinks it does (and Dumbledore knows the truth) The most obvious side effect is that if Voldy can touch Harry, then Harry can touch Voldy too - and Harry is at large and is a student of Voldy's most powerful enemy. If this isn't setting up a climatic Harry vs Voldy duel, I don't know what does. Reaching a bit more, if magical defenses ARE carried in the blood... well, all Voldy's blood (and thus his defenses) were blasted away when his curse reflected on him and he became spirit-like. His blood is now Harry's, and Harry is very much mortal. It could very well be that Voldy is now completely mortal too - powerful to be sure, but maybe now he can actually be struck down and stay there. The key to all this is going to be in the nature of how Harry and Voldy are tightly tied together. We haven't been told enough yet to really speculate on how that is going to turn out, but I'd lay wages that it's the key point. DG From reepicheepuk at yahoo.co.uk Sun Mar 10 20:47:57 2002 From: reepicheepuk at yahoo.co.uk (reepicheepuk) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 20:47:57 -0000 Subject: Professor Norris? In-Reply-To: <017901c1c76f$e467f500$ae26ddcb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36301 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" wrote: Perhaps [Mrs.Norris]is really a witch ... An absolutely intriguing idea (at least for cat lovers)! She might be in her cat form for any reason, but I seriously doubt she'd be any kind of lover of Filch. I mean, we all know how he is described; can you see any sensible girl falling for a guy like him? Also, if we think of JKR's use of names, I don't think anybody called Filch (OED: to filch - petty stealing) can ever be a likeable character. (Of course, if we assume her to be evil, then it would be a different matter, but as a cat lover I refuse to consider this idea.) How about the idea that she was turned into a cat to ESCAPE Filch's hateful attention (see Daphne and Apollo, and Apollo wasn't half the creep Filch is!)? Hey, another idea comes up here: How about a Mrs.N/Crookshanks romance? Wonder how this is going to develop, reepicheep (the Talking Mouse, very fitting here) PS: I posted a fanfic on ffnet about exactly this idea, under the pen name of Fledge. Anybody interested, look it up! From jmmears at prodigy.net Sun Mar 10 23:48:19 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 23:48:19 -0000 Subject: The Potters' Profession In-Reply-To: <20020310142052.24715.qmail@web13508.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36302 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ms Lizard Gizzard wrote: > > I'm seeing a similar theme with Tralawney's > > prediction. I'm imagining James and Lily as > > possibly top aurors in the war with LV. > > One thing that JKR did reveal is that James had > inherited a great wealth and "did not have to work." > > I suppose that doesn't mean he did not work, but she > seemed to indicate that he had a life of leisure. I assumed that she meant that James did not have to work for money. After all, if you apply that logic to JKR, we would never see another Harry Potter book since she surely doesn't *have* to work either ;-). Jo Serenadust From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Mar 10 23:52:10 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 23:52:10 -0000 Subject: The Gleam & the Hiss In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36303 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "talondg" wrote: > The key to all this is going to be in the nature of how Harry and > Voldy are tightly tied together. We haven't been told enough yet to > really speculate on how that is going to turn out, but I'd lay wages > that it's the key point. Good point. They're *tied* - now with MORE ways than one. We don't know *what* AK exactly does only that it kills... It also created the well known link - Harry's scar when it didn't succeed. The spirits that came out of the wand. Could they have been *ghosts* or souls that were trapped inside - but are now free? The pain Harry has felt when Voldy killed someone has made him unable to do much anything - maybe it'll do something *visible* like bleed instead - or in addition. It might react to crucio curse, as well... Poor Harry, he's going to have a hard, painful time ahead. He tries to study, Voldy strikes and his scar hurts so that he can't concentrate... Another thing is Harry's dreams - all dreams mentioned have been about his past (nightmares about his parents, flying with Hagrid) - present(Visions of Voldemort killing someone) or about future (winning the Tri-wizard cup - happiness presenting his desire of meeting his parents, although it happened with them as ghosts, but anyway... and *future* vision isn't supposed to "make sense", but be cryptic.) My bones, flesh and blood (a relative?) Voldemort has a bone of his ancestor/muggle-relative (could Harry get Petunia's "wisdom"-tooth, particularly if a Granger is her dentist, for a protection-spell... Hermione's gift to Harry as an amulet? - Got to be something meaningful for them being *dentists*! No better way to get a piece of bone willingly given AND with the person still alive and unhurt *without magic*!) Flesh of a servant, Willingly Given - Blood of the enemy, Forcibly Taken. (What does it mean that the Flesh has life-debt to the Blood? PP may know - that's why he suggested someone else *but* didn't dare to tell Voldy of his life-debt to Harry...) Just exactly what kind of bond life-debt creates, anyway? Failure to pay doesn't kill when the creditor dies. It doesn't prevent harming or even killing the creditor. BTW, could Snape be in-debted to Longbottoms as well, because they did NOT tell Snape told the names of DEs even when so horribly tortured? It *is* obvious that Snape doesn't like being reminded of his life-debts, though. And that it *is* a serious matter. Would PP visit the court and prove Sirius innocent, make a confession etc. (with an escape plan, no doubt) - if that saved Harry's life and so paid the debt? Harry's life *might* become dependant of Sirius getting free - free to keep Harry from getting too depressed. How did Sirius' cellmates kill themselves? Harry might try the same... And Sirius knows *everything* about depression, doesn't he? From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 00:17:30 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 00:17:30 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore = Nicholas Flamel? In-Reply-To: <20020310081038.72861.qmail@web14203.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36304 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kelly Hurt wrote: > --- brewpub44 wrote: > > [snip] > >Is Dumbledore really Nicholas Flamel? > [snip] > >Anyway, do you agree? Are there holes > >in my theory? Let me know! > > Since Dumbledore's brother is still alive, I doubt this. What of that Chocolate Frog Card about Albus Dumbledore? It specifically stated Albus created Philosopher's stone together with Nicholas Flamel. *Not* the same person. Oh, and Ron's almost-perfect collection... Does he have cards of Harry, Lily and James Potter? It was said somewhere they were famous too, not only Harry. From chspnll at pacific.net.in Sun Mar 10 10:32:53 2002 From: chspnll at pacific.net.in (Chris Parnell) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 21:32:53 +1100 Subject: Harry will strip Voldemort? In-Reply-To: <1015748666.2558.98047.m9@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36305 Chelsea was responding to Zeyoung: If it came down to Harry having to either kill V or strip him of his powers, i think Harry would strip his powers. ..... I think JKR has warned us repeatedly that someone is going to die, and it is a death that is going to be close to Harry, and he will have to confront grisly and emotionally churning death and grapple with the reality of a life ended, a life that he is emotionally connected to. I think, given the moral context of the tales JKR is telling, Harry, if he e'er confronts Riddle AKA Voldemort with life and death, will not take the easy solution, but the right solution because he has learned that is always the best thing to do, particularly in terms of consequences. I don't want to predict what Harry will do in a situation like this, because JKR is constructing an intensely moral universe despite the dislikes and the actions of Riddle AKA Voldemort, of Pettigrew, of Snape or Sirius. For example, Dumbledore is utterly reliable *because* he is utterly morally predictable and may be relied upon to chose the cause of right, even if he is the holder of more information than any other actors in the drama about him. Chris Parnell not might and magic, its right and magic. From chynarose8 at hotmail.com Sun Mar 10 17:46:41 2002 From: chynarose8 at hotmail.com (abigail_draconi) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 17:46:41 -0000 Subject: The Importance of Hallowe'en Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36306 In an earlier post, Ebony had pointed out that she had noticed that a number of significant events took place on Halloween such as the death of Lilly and James, the forming of the trio, and Harry's big fight with Ron. In normal Wicca tradition, Halloween is very significant. It is one of the eight Sabbats, and more often referred to as Samhain. According to _The Complete Idiot's Guide to Wicca and Witchcraft_, Samhain is one of the Greater Sabbats and is pretty much the biggest holiday in the Wiccan calendar [173]. It also happens to be one of two pagan holidays wildly known to the general public, the other being Yule or Christmas. Given these facts, I'm not surprised that October 31 would be significant in Harry Potter. But then, I'm a little biased when it comes to that date. Aside from its pure commercial value (which I find rather fun since I will grab any excuse to get into a costume) and its supposed mystic properties, it also happens to be my birthday. And here's some more food for thought, I was born on the exact same day that James and Lilly died, albeit about six hours earlier. @---<-- Chyna Rose From tabouli at unite.com.au Mon Mar 11 01:16:30 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:16:30 +1100 Subject: More on Snape and Mrs Norris Message-ID: <00c101c1c89a$60be7d60$be35c2cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 36307 Rita: > How can Voldemort have failed to learn that Snape was outed in a courtroom before some 200 witnesses? Even if Rita Skeeter wasn't covering Karkaroff's clemency hearing (I can't think what else to call it), out of 200 spectators/jurors, surely some would babble.< Simple. Voldemort (on hearing of Dumbledore's comments at the trial): "Inviegling Dumbledore into declaring Snape's innocence in front of 200 peopl! The fiendish cleverness of my spy Snape! Now *no-one* will suspect he's still a Death-Eater working for me against the Good Side..." (evil cackling) Rita: > Why would a Death Eater marry a Mudblood? Like a Klansman marrying a (black person) or a Nazi marrying a (Jew).< Well, several possibilities. He could have married her before he became a Death-Eater. She could have concealed her origins from him. She might have been so Dead Sexy that Mr Norris wanted to marry her anyway, and then took out his prejudices on her later (happens often enough in real-life cross-cultural marriages). Otherwise, surely an obvious possibility is that it's a cover-up! If you were a secret Death Eater working in the Ministry of Magic, you'd know full well that a great way to conceal it would be marrying a Mudblood! After all, why would a Death Eater marry a Mudblood, eh? Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 01:21:33 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 01:21:33 -0000 Subject: The Importance of Hallowe'en In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36309 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "joanne0012" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., heidit at n... wrote: > > It's actually 10 months to the day, and pregnancy really is a 40 week (ie 10 > month) process. If harry was born 2 weeks late, he would've been conceived on > halloween. > > > > Just this one, which is too *perfect* for real > > life, but might work in a story: Harry's birthday > > is July 31, which happens to be 9 calendar months > > after Halloween. > > Er, October 31 to July 31 is indeed 9 months. The way obstetricians figure that > 40-week pregnancy is from last menstrual period (LMP), go back 3 months and > add a week (39 weeks being exactly 9 months). So if Harry was conceived on > Halloween his due date would have been figured out thus: Starting from October > 17 (that's assuming Lily was, um, regular), back 3 months is July 17, add a week > is July 24. So he'd have had to be just one week late, even more plausible. One week... hmm... it happens. But it could have been something else. Say - James and Lily *married* on October 31st, spent at least a week if not a moon doing nothing but - and Harry was born in due time. Next October 31st... Fidelius Charm is cast, Wanting to protect a 3- month-old baby; Next - James and Lily die... Did Harry's eyes turn green on Halloween? Did he say his first word on Halloween? Take his first step on Halloween? 11 - Nice number: It's a prime - and a double(like 22,33 etc.) The first year when you can't show your age by fingers; the abstract number... From tabouli at unite.com.au Mon Mar 11 01:32:00 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:32:00 +1100 Subject: What's in a name? - Filch Message-ID: <00cc01c1c89c$9338a160$be35c2cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 36310 Reepicheep: > I seriously doubt (whether Mrs Norris would be) be any kind of lover of Filch. I mean, we all know how he is described; can you see any sensible girl falling for a guy like him? Also, if we think of JKR's use of names, I don't think anybody called Filch (OED: to filch - petty stealing) can ever be a likeable character.< Ah, but no! We only know how he's described *now*, after years and years of anguish over his feline beloved have turned him cruel and hysterical. (He's not made of the same strong stuff as Snape, who has emerged from his own traumas still functional. Then again, perhaps it would be *worse* to know your beloved was stuck in cat form because of you than it would be if she died and you had a sort of closure). Perhaps as a younger man he was dashing and devoted! As for the meaning of "Filch" being "petty stealing"... what could be more appropriate? He filched Mr Norris' wife, resulting into her tragic cat curse, and then *stole* her again and took her to Hogwarts! It's all in the name, folks... Tabouli (the talking salad). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lterrellgiii at icqmail.com Mon Mar 11 05:05:26 2002 From: lterrellgiii at icqmail.com (ltg3asu) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 05:05:26 -0000 Subject: Unifying Theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36311 Greetings, all! As this is my first post, and I have only been lurking a short time, I'm not a true scholar of the hallowed ways of this group just yet, so your patience with my ramblings is appreciated. I have, for some time, been speculating on just why Voldemort would single out a child for destruction. There is, of course, the much talked about "Heir of Gryffindor" theory, but for me, this doesn't hold with JKR's theme of our choices making us who we are, and not innate qualities. So, like any good HP fan, I have my own little theory, which, I have come to jokingly refer to as my "Unifying Theory" (a pun which makes me chuckle, and that, hopefully you'll understand shortly, especially if you are familiar with the social sciences). I asked myself, firstly, what could have been LV's motivation. Its seems obvious that he is attempting to get rid of an obstacle impeding his path to power. Does he need any other reason? Sheer malice or sadism, maybe, but why be so specific about Harry and his family? The existence of James and Harry (but, it appears, not Lilly) seem to be in the way of LV's plans, but, why? A core theme of the books, thus far, I believe, has been schisms within a people due to groups they belong to or things associated with them. Not only do we find race issues in the wizarding community (Mudblood vs. Pureblood), but we also see very distinct and purposeful separations between the houses at Hogwarts, socio-economic classes in the community (Malfoys vs. Weasleys), and between those afflicted with "non-human" characteristics (e.g: werewolves and half giants) and normal wizards. LV feeds off of these prejudices, much as Hitler did, with whom he also shared having a father who belonged to the group he came to hate so completely (LV being born of a muggle father who abandoned him, and Hitler being born of a Jewish father who, likewise, abandoned him). He uses them (the preexisting prejudices within the community) to promote his own causes and hatreds, and to create strong and powerful allies with established wizarding families, through which, he will gain power. What could possibly destroy these dark alliances he has created more so than "unity" within the wizarding community. Could it possibly be that Harry's place is not to destroy LV and the DE's in a final, apocalyptic duel of archetypical proportions, but to, rather, destroy what is at the core of their evil ways: hatred and mistrust of those who are different. I offer for evidence the scene of Harry's sorting in SS/PS. "Hmm, Difficult. Very Difficult. Plenty of courage, I see. Not a bad mind, either. There's talent, oh my goodness, yes - and a nice thirst to prove yourself, now that's interesting...." Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's / Philosopher's Stone I find this interesting, because, in my interpretation, the hat is quite literally saying that Harry could be placed into any one of the four Hogwarts houses. "Plenty of courage" is an obvious reference to Gryffindor house. "Not a bad mind" is a nod towards Ravenclaw the house of intellectuals. "Talent", I believe, is a quality belonging to Hufflepuffs, who, are "unafraid of toil". I see, with the thought of talent, that prematurely departed hero of Hufflepuff house (and his father) Cedric Diggory, who seemed to excel at everything through his talent. Finally, that wisest of hats mentions " a nice thirst to prove yourself" (referring to Harry). This, to me, seems like a very Slytherin quality, as a need for approval and recognition could very well fuel many attempts to gain those things by any means accessible. There has already been much play on the similarities between Harry and LV (especially in CoS by Tom Riddle and Harry, himself). These musings, as well as the sorting scene, I think, are reflections on the duality of Harry. He embodies two worlds. The muggle world he grew up in, and the wizarding world who has cherished his existence since that fateful Hallowe'en. Who better to serve as an intermediary between two worlds than someone who walks in both of them (this certainly explains one of the reasons that Dumbledore may have had for Harry staying with the dreadful Dursleys). It is interesting to note that LV also was raised in a fashion much like Harry (as an orphan and completely separate of the wizarding world). Not only does Harry stride both in magical and non-magical worlds, but within him also resides essence of the heir of Slytherin (due to LV's reflected AK, as indicated by his status as a parseltongue), and that of Gryffindor (Dumbledore says that "only a true Gryffindor" could have pulled the sword from the sorting hat in CoS). Begin to look at the people Harry has chosen to surround himself with, also. A half-giant, a werewolf, a mudblood, a very poor wizard, and an escaped convict (not to mention a freed house-elf and a pseudo-squib, a.k.a. Neville Longbottom). Why should the shining star of the wizarding world, born of such beloved and powerful parents, associate with those so far "below" him (at least by the magical communities social standards)? Because he chooses to. So, Harry has had to find an equilibrium with his dual natures. Why would his greatest accomplishment and gift to the world not be to help it do the same? Harry is already on a very different path than LV, who faced, I am sure, many of the same problems due to his duality as Harry has (the disbelief, confusion, prejudice, and feelings of inferiority). It has been quite clear ever since Harry's sorting ("Not Slytherin, not Slytherin!") from the choices they have both made that, though they may be taken from the same mold, Harry and Lord Voldemort are of very different qualities altogether. LV as the proprietor of separation, and Harry as the unifier of opposites. Destruction versus Creation. Yin versus Yang. Death versus Life. Though the path which will lead to it is unclear at this time, the archetype of the divine marriage may very well reside in the pages of future books. *Standing back, and rereading this, my fingers are crossed that my first post isn't slammed too hard, and that everyone who feels the need to suggest my likeness to a certain bushy-haired, buck-toothed know-it-all (due to my long-windedness) finds it in their heart of hearts to make their allusions subtle enough to be repressed until a later date when I can accept the truth.* Leroyal Terrell Gould, III (This is my actual name.... don't you think it would make a good addition to the Hogwarts roster?... *hint*hint* J.K. Rowling, wherever you are!) From uncmark at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 06:19:57 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 06:19:57 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's First Prediction In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020310051043.00aa8bf8@mail.gte.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36312 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Stacy Stroud wrote: > saintbacchus asked, RE Trelawney's first true prediction as bearing on the Potter/Voldy conflict: > > >What I want to know is, how did Voldemort know about a > >prediction made by a Hogwarts staffer? Spies? > > > Well, we don't know the prediction was actually made during the last Voldemort War. Perhaps it was Tom Riddle who was witness to Trelawney's first true prediction, much as Harry witnessed her second? Trelawney could still have been a teacher at the time, or she might have been a fellow student. (McGonagall's not much older than Riddle, and we know Minerva and Sibyll have a bit of animosity going; perhaps Trelawney is of similar age and went to school with both McGonagall and Riddle.) > > For an added twist, perhaps she used the name "Lord Voldemort" in the prediction, meaning that Tom was the only one who understood it at the time (having been using the nickname in secret among his friends). That could also explain why Dumbledore counts it as a true prediction even if its fulfillment may still be playing out: the rise of a Dark Lord named Voldemort has already come to pass, and suggests that the rest of the prediction (about his fall at the hands of a Potter or whatever) might also be true. > I answered a lot of this in my post #36277. Pettigrew was a spy for LV and in James & Lily's inner circle of friends. I suggested the prophecy came at a Public Event like the Potter's wedding or Harry's christening and of the Baby Harry causing LV's downfall. Pettigrew informed LV and LV tried to kill Harry CAUSING his own downfall by trying to stop a prophecy he should have ignored. Uncmark From siskiou at earthlink.net Mon Mar 11 06:39:58 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 22:39:58 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's in a name? - Weasleys In-Reply-To: <00cc01c1c89c$9338a160$be35c2cb@price> References: <00cc01c1c89c$9338a160$be35c2cb@price> Message-ID: <80164694434.20020310223958@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36313 Hi, Sunday, March 10, 2002, 5:32:00 PM, Tabouli wrote: > It's all in the name, folks... Reading about all the possible meanings of characters names, what about the Weasley family? Is that a "good" name to have in JKR's books? Where I grew up (Germany) it wasn't exactly a compliment to be compared to a weasel. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From adatole at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 07:01:36 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (adatole) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 07:01:36 -0000 Subject: Chess Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36314 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > Chelsea wrote: > You know, I've always wondered about Ron taking the knight's position > as well. Ron's obviously a very good chess player. So why would he > have chosen to take the place of a *knight?* I am not very good at > chess myself, but I have played enough of the game to know that the > knights are, well... > > Well, there's just no nice way to say this. They're pieces that one > often chooses to sacrifice. ***************** I really enjoy chess, although I have to admit very little talent at the game. However, the choice of Knight makes perfect sense. It is the only piece that can "jump" over other pieces. It has the ability to move around the board the fastest (ie: is not confined to straight lines). And while it is often sacrificed near the end of the game (when it is no longer needed), that is usually after it has "herded" the opponents pieces into position so that the bishop, queen, or rook (castle) can swoop in for the final blow. Just my opinions. Leon From uncmark at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 07:35:23 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 07:35:23 -0000 Subject: Molly Weasly's parenting style/ Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36315 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catalyna_99" wrote: > Vicky DeGroote wrote: > > I agreee with the several poster who have stated that we need to > give Molly Weaslya break whenit comes to her parenting-esp of Ron! > > It's probably accepted in their family that whatever is on sale at > the market that week is qhat they get for sandwiches! Some weeks > it's maybe Percy's favorite, corned beef. Other weeks, Ron's > favorite (ham?) is on sale so everyone gets ham that week whether > they like it or not Right! I'm rereading PofA and Molly gave them sandwiches on the Hogwart's Express, "Here you are Ron... No, They're not corned beef" I personally admire Molly. It takes A LOT OF WORK to raise 7 children, even with magic! PLUS she is so caring and accepting to Harry and Hermione, even before Harry saved Ginny. How few women would knit an extra sweater or bake extra meat pies for a friend of her children? Plus it's no small thing having a tenage boy houseguest for 2 weeks! I'm guessing the dress robes and second-hand books were the best she could do providing for her last two children. Noone enjoys buying secondhand. It's a necessity! (Personally I'm last of 6 kids and had hand-me-downs way too often. I see my divorced sister trying to raise 3 kids and wonder how Molly does it with 7!) Uncmark From siskiou at earthlink.net Mon Mar 11 08:07:10 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 00:07:10 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Molly Weasly's parenting style/ Percy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56168733704.20020311000710@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36316 Hi, Sunday, March 10, 2002, 11:35:23 PM, uncmark wrote: > It takes A LOT OF WORK to raise 7 > children, even with magic! Yeah, but she also get long "vacations" from most of her kids, once they hit the magic age 11. How much are kids who go to boarding schools at home? How long are the summer vacations in Britain, and what other major breaks are there? It seems the Weasley kids stay at school during a lot of the Christmas breaks. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From j-lipton at nwu.edu Mon Mar 11 07:38:26 2002 From: j-lipton at nwu.edu (Jamie Lipton) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 01:38:26 -0600 Subject: Barty Crouch, Jr and Mystery Death Eaters Message-ID: <036f01c1c8cf$bb7b73e0$03fea8c0@death-computer> No: HPFGUIDX 36317 I've just been rereading GoF - the bit where Harry's in Dumbledore's Pensieve and witnesses the trial of Barty Crouch, Jr. and friends for using the Cruciatus curse on the Longbottoms. Upon his conviction, Crouch Jr. cries out to his parents that he didn't do it, and we assume that he is lying. At the end of GoF, we find out for certain (unless the Veritaserum is faulty, but let's not go there) that Crouch Jr. was and is still a Death Eater, but he is not asked about whether or not he really tortured the Longbottoms. Does anyone else think that, while Crouch Jr. was certainly guilty of being a Death Eater, he may not have been guilty of using an Unforgiveable Curse? It's come up before that maybe he was under the Imperious Curse. How else could a man who spent most of his adult life in Azkaban perform such difficult magic unassisted? It is emphasized that he is a very young man at this trial - probably just out of Hogwarts. It seems unlikely to me that such a young man with no family background in the Dark Arts should be able to perform the Cruciatus curse to the degree required to drive the Longbottoms to insanity. Who are the other Death Eaters involved in that trial? There are two men and a woman - one of those men and the women might be the Lestranges? Who is the last man? Anyone we know? Whoever he is, we can presume he is still in Azkaban. When Voldemort is resurrected, he only accounts for the Lestranges being in Azkaban. There are the three that died in his service, but I imagine they were killed before Voldemort's fall. The one who was too afraid to return was Karkaroff, and the one who has left forever is Snape - is that correct? So that's one mystery Death Eater, which begs the question, how many Death Eaters are there? Are there more than just the ones Voldemort named, in the same way that there must be more Gryffindor girls in Hermione's dorm that don't get mentioned? - Jamie From pen at pensnest.co.uk Mon Mar 11 09:06:29 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 09:06:29 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Molly Weasly's parenting style/ Percy In-Reply-To: <56168733704.20020311000710@earthlink.net> References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36318 Suzanne asked: >How much are kids who go to boarding schools at home? >How long are the summer vacations in Britain, and what other >major breaks are there? >It seems the Weasley kids stay at school during a lot of the >Christmas breaks. State school and private school holidays follow the same basic pattern, but with variation. Assuming I can remember my own (boarding) school days with reasonable accuracy, it's something like this: School year starts: early September (Autumn Term) Half term holiday, end of October: State schools 1 week, Private schools, 4-day weekend Christmas Holiday: SS 2 weeks, PS 3 weeks (finishing school a week earlier in December) Spring Term starts early January Half term, late February: SS 1 week, PS long weekend Easter holidays (a variable feast, just to complicate things) WW 2 weeks, PS 3 weeks Summer Term starts April Half term, usually end of May: SS 1 week, PS long weekend End of term: SS late July, PS beginning of July Summer holiday: SS 5 - 6 weeks, PS 8 weeks Hogwarts doesn't seem to have half-term breaks. As you can see, the major holidays (Christmas, Easter, Summer) are longer for the private schools, but state schoolchildren get a longer half-term break. Hope this helps. Pen From ruben at satec.es Mon Mar 11 07:13:33 2002 From: ruben at satec.es (elirtai) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 07:13:33 -0000 Subject: Unifying Theory / Sorting hat / Voldemort and Hitler (re: Unifying Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36319 Leroyal Terrell Gould III ("ltg3asu") wrote: > I have, for some time, been speculating on just why Voldemort would > single out a child for destruction. There is, of course, the much > talked about "Heir of Gryffindor" theory, but for me, this doesn't > hold with JKR's theme of our choices making us who we are, and not > innate qualities. [snip] JKR knows that, and Dumbledore, and now Harry. Other people too. But not Voldemort, not necessarily. He probably doesn't see things that way or he wouldn't be as obsessed about pure blood lineage. [long theory main argument snipped - see message 36311] While I essentially agree with what you say, I don't agree with the conclusions. I think that's not enough to drive Voldemort; we know his main obsession is personal everlasting power, and the theory about the Gryffindor heir makes a lot of sense to me in that context. A couple of comments: - I always saw Harry's sorting as an epitome of JKR's "your choices make what you are". Probably most of the students are given more than one choice, according to their potentials. Take Hermione: she was probably offered Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff too, and why not Slytherin since she's ambitious? The only exception seems to be Draco; the hat knew he was a Slytherin as soon as it was brought in contact with him. Of course, Draco had already made his choice, but so had Hermione. That may be significant: it might tells us Draco has indeed none of the potentials associated with the other houses. - About Voldemort's parallelisms with Hitler, they don't end here. V hates halfbloods even though he's one himself. Hitler believed in an ideal race with particular physical features, but he wouldn't have qualified for it himself! > *Standing back, and rereading this, my fingers are crossed that my > first post isn't slammed too hard, I hope I haven't - welcome! Elirtai From skelkins at attbi.com Mon Mar 11 09:56:05 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 09:56:05 -0000 Subject: Kitty-Gro, FLIRTIAC, and Argus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36320 Tabouli suggested a new spin on FLIRTIAC: > In Harry's fifth year, however, the situation is too serious. > Dumbledore can no longer justify keeping talented a witch hidden > in feline form, and reunites Filch with his beloved in human form, > thus gaining a new member of staff...Professor Norris, the new and > female professor teaching Defence Against the Dark Arts! Oh *no,* Tabouli! Just think of the terrible potential for heartache! I mean, we all know that the new female DADA professor is *always* the one who finally manages to break through poor dear Sevvie's nasty old shell and win his warm and squishy heart, right? And we all *know* how Snape and Filch feel about each other. So you can't go putting poor Mrs. Norris in the middle of all that, Tabouli, you just *can't!* I won't allow it! It would be far too ugly, and too too cruel. Although... Although it would make for one *great* bang-up of a love triangle, don't you think? Especially if combined with the Kitty-Gro variant of FLIRTIAC? After all, as you yourself said: > Moreover, Filch knows that Snape not only knows about his tragic > secret, but is devoting hours of research to the one thing that > matters most to him in the world... curing Mrs Norris. Ah...but why? *Why* does Snape devote all of those hours of research to curing some Squib's muggle-born girlfriend? Just because she was once, like Snape, an ally of Dumbledore? Just because of his regard for Filch? Just because he feels a little guilty about helping to invent the Kitty-Gro? Just because he's a Great Big Softie when it comes to doomed romance? Naaaaah. No, it's *obviously* because he was in love with her himself! And furthermore, he still is. > (Could even Snape and Filch not be friends under such > circumstances?) But of course they would have to have become friends! It's one of those classic male-bonding things. It's that "united through their shared love of the same woman" thing, don't you know. It's that old Romantic Rivals thing. Works every time. But oh, how ugly things could become once Mrs. Norris is returned to human form! Fifteen years ago, admittedly, she chose the older and more worldly (if far less magical) of the two men. But would she make that same choice again? Perhaps now that she's had fifteen years of Filch's company, Filch's Lover Is Regretting that decision? Perhaps now that she is no spring kitten herself, she might find Snape's boyish charm and youthful good looks (hey, it's all *relative,* right?) far more appealing than Filch's worldly wisdom and serene maturity? (I said it's *relative,* dammit! Relative!) Forced to choose once more between these two paragons of masculine desirability, would Mrs. Norris make the same decision the *second* time around? Oh, how Filch wonders sometimes -- especially on those nights when sleep simply refuses to come. How he wonders in the wee hours, as he stares sightlessly at those useless Kwikspell course notes, waiting for the first light of dawn... And Snape wonders too, of course. Why else would he be working so hard on that antidote? So long as Mrs. Norris cannot express her opinion, this tension may go pleasantly unresolved, adding a special piquancy to those tender moments when Filch tends Snape's wounds or helps him to cover up those pesky grey hairs. But oh, once she is transformed back into a woman, what on earth will happen? Yes, all right, Tabouli. You've sold me on it. But only if I can turn it into a love triangle. But surely that's perfectly okay with you. Right? > I think the evidence before us is clear, ladies and gentlemen, so > much so that I might take some time out from LOLLIPOPS and rewrite > the FLIRTIAC manual... Your canonical evidence is indeed most impressive (I particularly liked the Polyjuice Precedent)! But might I suggest one further bit of canon that helps to support my variant? The smirk. That little smirk on Snape's face when Filch is overcome with grief over Mrs. Norris' petrifaction in CoS. One thing that Kitty-Gro utterly fails to explain to my satisfaction is why on earth Snape would be suppressing a *smile* there. But if Filch is his romantic *rival,* you see, then it makes a bit more sense. Snape knows perfectly well that Mrs. Norris has merely been petrified, not killed, and that her condition is both painless and reversible. That Filch does not himself realize this is indeed rather pathetic. Snape bothers to suppress the smile because he really does have some affection for Filch. But what he's really thinking there is: "A man like this could surely never hold her. She will be *mine!*" Reepicheep (the Talking Mouse) wrote: > She might be in her cat form for any reason, but I seriously doubt > she'd be any kind of lover of Filch. I mean, we all know how he is > described; can you see any sensible girl falling for a guy like > him? A *sensible* girl? Of course a sensible girl could fall for a guy like that! He may have all sorts of sterling qualities that we the readers, limited in our perspective to Harry's point of view, might just never have seen. I mean, just think of the, uh...tenderness he shows to Snape in PS/SS, helping him tend to his wounds. Think of the, uh, depths of emotion that he shows in CoS, as he sobs over poor petrified Mrs. Norris. Think of...of... Well, yeah, okay. Now I'm out of examples. But surely the man has many admirable traits that have simply not yet been brought to light. Filch is not, it is true, very much in the way of eye candy. But then, surely *sensible* girls shouldn't care about such things. That's for frivolous girls. Hmmph. First Captain Charis goes denying poor Peter a teenaged love interest ("who would have him?" she asks, just because he was a little short and podgy), and now here you go, picking on Filch! What a bastion of Lookism we *are* here at HPFGU, aren't we! Besides, it could well be that Mrs. Norris was just really really *into* those manacles. Tabouli objected: > Ah, but no! We only know how he's described *now*, after years > and years of anguish over his feline beloved have turned him cruel > and hysterical. . . .Perhaps as a younger man he was dashing and > devoted! Erm. Well, really, if we go by the Kitty-Gro FLIRTIAC timeline, then it can't have been more than fifteen years, can it? I don't really know if I believe that to be quite enough time to turn someone young and dashing into...well, Filch. But hey. Who cares? After all, ugly, creepy, mean-spirited, cruel old hysterical people need love too. Reepicheep added: > Also, if we think of JKR's use of names, I don't think anybody > called Filch (OED: to filch - petty stealing) can ever be a > likeable character. (Of course, if we assume her to be evil, then > it would be a different matter, but as a cat lover I refuse to > consider this idea.) Oh, come now! Filch isn't evil. He's unpleasant, yes, not a terribly likeable fellow. But I don't think we've seen any evidence that he's *evil.* And Mrs. Norris is *certainly* not evil. She's very compassionate. Just think of all of those times that she's stared right at Harry while he's been skulking about in that invisibility cloak, and yet not turned him in! She's a real softie, is Mrs. Norris. > How about the idea that she was turned into a cat to ESCAPE Filch's > hateful attention (see Daphne and Apollo, and Apollo wasn't half > the creep Filch is!)? Hmmm. Well, if you want to run with the classical allusions and the significance of names (and since you really do seem to dislike Filch), then might I suggest that you focus on Filch's *first* name: Argus? If you run with the name Argus, then with only a slight twist on the legend, you could propose that Filch might actually be an *ally* of the wicked Mr. Norris, appointed by him to keep watch over his erring (and now transfigured) wife. This would, of course, make all of Filch's endearments -- "my sweet" and suchnot -- merely an expression of a kind of perverted prison-guard sadism, and his hysteria over Mrs. Norris' petrifaction in CoS the purely self-indulgent tears of a man who fears that he has failed the instructions of his powerful and dangerous master and may himself therefore soon be facing merciless punishment. It also could provide you with endless happy hours of speculation over just who Mrs. Norris' lover could have *been.* (Bonus points if you make it be Florence!) I prefer FLIRTIAC, myself. But I offer you the Argus Theory as a gesture of peace and good-will, and of open relations between Rapier- Wielding Talking Mice and Bleeding-Heart SYCOPHANTS. -- Elkins From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Mon Mar 11 11:22:36 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 11:22:36 -0000 Subject: murdered owls / Is Dumbledore really Flamel? (NO!!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36321 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > > brewpub Barkeep wrote: > > > Notice no one has ever researched DD's bio in any of the books. > > Do we even know if he went to Hogwarts? > > In SS/PS, Hermione said: "I hope I'm in Gryffindor, it sounds by far > the best; I hear Dumbledore himself was in it". Although I grant Hermione's intelligence, this sounds like a rumor told on the train and not a fact. > > Also, JKR said in interview that Dumbledore is 150 years old. Would > she have said that so out-right in an interview is she was going to > pull some twister about 'the Dumbledore identify is 150 years old' > because Flamel started creating it 150 years old? > If I was an author of a very popular book series, with legions of fans poring over the internet looking for all sorts of clues, I would purposely mislead them once in a while. I don't think taking her interviews as ways of determining plot directions is a very good idea. A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Mon Mar 11 11:25:20 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 11:25:20 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore = Nicholas Flamel? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36322 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elirtai" wrote: > > Anyway, the Barkeep further says: > > Taking a cue from the Elves in the Lord of the Rings, nothing > > eliminates desire like being immortal -- there's simply all the > time > > in the world to do whatever you want to do, kind of takes the fun > out > > of it. > > Yes, I agree with that! But if you look at Dumbledore now, and at > Tolkien's elves, there's a definite difference. He has fun out of a > lot of things. He's one to involve himself and take a stance in every > situation. He certainly doesn't looks like one who has got bored with > life knowing that life will eventually give him everything he wants. > > Cheers, > Elirtai Yeah, a horrible choice of words on my part. I think you got my point, and I concur with your correction Cheers! Barkeep From naama_gat at hotmail.com Mon Mar 11 09:02:05 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 09:02:05 -0000 Subject: Animagus Transformation & Naked Wizards (WAS Sartorial blind-spots, ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36323 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Elkins wrote: > > >You know, I have to admit that it never once occurred to me to > > wonder what Pettigrew was wearing in Shrieking Shack. cringing> > > Not to worry. There's plenty of evidence that Animagi keep their > clothes. ::pauses to imagine McGonagall in her birthday suit on the > wall on Privet Drive and in the classroom in PoA:: Well, if there > isn't evidence, we need to find it *right now*. > How about the spectacles markings both McGonagall and Rita Skeeter retain in animal form? It's not proof, since glasses seem to be more of a personal item than clothes but still... I'm pretty sure McGonagall didn't sit naked there in Privet Drive (or have we found another reason for Dumbledore's using the Putouter?) > I think Peter dropped a spare set of robes, because he knew that his > own robes would go with him when he transformed. Yes, that's it. > I think that's quite reasonable myself. No reason why he shouldn't have taken this into account, since he had everything else well planned ahead. > So where is Pettigrew's wand? It should have transformed with him, > but he appears not to have it. That's, uh, because he set his wand > on self-destruct, see. He didn't just blow a hole in the street with > his wand. He's a weak, talentless thing, right Sirius? Pettigrew > had his wand blow *itself* up. He yells out, then he drops the wand, > transforms, scurries, and then the wand explodes before the muggles > know what hit them. Now *that* would generate some seriously lethal > magical energy. So they never found Pettigrew's wand because it no > longer exists. I don't remember it being said specifically that Pettigrew's wand couldn't be found. If this is true, why not assume that it was found? That makes for a nice, simple explanation of why Pettigrew doesn't have a wand when he changes to human form. He would have had to leave his wand behind in order to make the heroic-murdered-Pettigrew story credible. > > Cindy (not eager to imagine Rita Skeeter in the altogether, either) Nor me. Still, at the very least she has her glasses on... Naama ;-) From brewpub44 at earthlink.net Mon Mar 11 11:27:07 2002 From: brewpub44 at earthlink.net (brewpub44) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 11:27:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore = Nicholas Flamel? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36324 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" wrote: > > --- brewpub44 wrote: > > > > [snip] > > >Is Dumbledore really Nicholas Flamel? > > [snip] > > >Anyway, do you agree? Are there holes > > >in my theory? Let me know! > > > > Since Dumbledore's brother is still alive, I doubt this. > > What of that Chocolate Frog Card about Albus Dumbledore? It > specifically stated Albus created Philosopher's stone together with > Nicholas Flamel. *Not* the same person. > Well, only if you believe trading cards are accurate. How would you cite one on a term paper, anyway? ;-) Sorry, just being a little silly. Barkeep From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 14:51:34 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:51:34 -0000 Subject: Chess Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36325 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "adatole" wrote: > ***************** > I really enjoy chess, although I have to admit very little talent at > the game. > > However, the choice of Knight makes perfect sense. It is the only > piece that can "jump" over other pieces. It has the ability to move > around the board the fastest (ie: is not confined to straight lines). > And while it is often sacrificed near the end of the game (when it is > no longer needed), that is usually after it has "herded" the > opponents pieces into position so that the bishop, queen, or rook > (castle) can swoop in for the final blow. And - it's not always necessary. A knight can be moved into EVERY square once and never visit the same square twice. Very useful piece. It is the only officer piece that's free to move at the beginning. Each piece has it's value - If King dies, you lose the game. If Queen dies, you're badly off (unless your opponent lost one too), and one *can* make a checkmate with only King and Queen left. Two towers can also do a checkmate. After them, the best piece is Knight - but Queen and Towers are at best with as little interference as possible. Also, knight is the best piece to protect from 4-move-checkmate. From Edblanning at aol.com Mon Mar 11 15:34:29 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 10:34:29 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape spying/ Rita/ Lucius (was:More on Snape and Mrs Norris Message-ID: <190.38bac1b.29be2885@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36326 Tabouli quotes > Rita: > > How can Voldemort have failed to learn that Snape was outed in a > courtroom before some 200 witnesses? Even if Rita Skeeter wasn't > covering Karkaroff's clemency hearing (I can't think what else to > call it), out of 200 spectators/jurors, surely some would babble.< Tabouli > Simple. > > Voldemort (on hearing of Dumbledore's comments at the trial): > "Inviegling Dumbledore into declaring Snape's innocence in front of 200 > peopl! The fiendish cleverness of my spy Snape! Now *no-one* will suspect > he's still a Death-Eater working for me against the Good Side..." (evil > cackling) > Yes, that's how I've argued it. It explains why, whilst Sirius hears the DEs in Azkaban complain about Karkaroff, he apparently doesn't hear anything about Snape. They think he's still loyal. Yet it doesn't explain it all, does it? This public outing of Snape as a spy is at odds with my feeling from everything else in the books that the only person who knows about his spying activities is Dumbledore himself. Once Sirius is out of Azkaban, he gathers information - on Karkaroff, for instance. So why is he surprised to hear that Snape's around, if it's public knowledge that he's one of Dumbledore's old spies ( and therefore probably in need of protection). And why don't the students know? Surely *one* of the parents, at some time, would have said, 'Ah, yes...Snape....Spied for Dumbledore according to what I read in the Daily Prophet'. A master who's a spy, a war hero...it should be all over the school. Even the majority who hate him would have some respect for that, but the only rumour we ever hear is that he wants the DADA job. Worse, he's also outed as a DE. *Surely* the school governors wouldn't sanction his appointment, however penitent he's supposed to be. The wizarding community doesn't seem to be hot on forgiving and forgetting, does it? I suppose Lucius Malfoy could Imperio the governors into it, but I hardly think Dumbledore would agree! And what does Fudge know? He talks of Dumbledore's spies in front of Flitwick and Mcgonagall without any apparent recognition that they know one of them and when he sees Snape's Dark Mark...well, there are various interpretations you could make, but I get the feeling he didn't know. I just can't make it add up. Sometimes I wonder if it's a bit of the plot-hole that got away. The public admission of Snape's past had to be made for Harry to witness it in the Pensieve. I've gone for a secrecy charm sort of explanation in the past, but I can't square that with Harry being able to access the memory - and then tell Ron and Hermione to boot. The waters just get muddier, the more I think about it. And a couple more things while I think of it. Talking of babblers,I don't trust that Rita as far as I could throw her. Yet she hasn't tried to blacken Snape's reputation. There must be stuff she knows from the 'trials' or could make up. Perhaps he's just too scary. But I do worry what she's going to get up to whilst she's under Hermione's ban on scandal-mongering in the press. Ripe time to sell her skills to Voldy, I'd say. (Oh, good! Rita Skeeter is Ever so Evil!) Secondly, have you noticed that Voldemort calls Lucius Malfoy by his *first* name? IIRC, he's the only person he does, bar Harry ( and calling Pettigrew by his nickname, which is somewhat derisory, anyway). Rather creepily familiar, don't you think? Eloise (Looking forward to the next development in the FLIRTIAC saga) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Mon Mar 11 15:42:35 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 10:42:35 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's in a name? - Weasleys Message-ID: <50.7e09a4d.29be2a6b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36327 In a message dated 11/03/02 06:56:54 GMT Standard Time, siskiou at earthlink.net writes: > Sunday, March 10, 2002, 5:32:00 PM, Tabouli wrote: > > > It's all in the name, folks... > > Reading about all the possible meanings of characters names, > what about the Weasley family? > > Is that a "good" name to have in JKR's books? > > Where I grew up (Germany) it wasn't exactly a compliment to be > compared to a weasel. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 15:59:59 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:59:59 -0000 Subject: Unifying Theory / Sorting hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36328 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elirtai" wrote: > Leroyal Terrell Gould III ("ltg3asu") wrote: > > I have, for some time, been speculating on just why Voldemort would > > single out a child for destruction. There is, of course, the much > > talked about "Heir of Gryffindor" theory, but for me, this doesn't > > hold with JKR's theme of our choices making us who we are, and not > > innate qualities. [snip] > > JKR knows that, and Dumbledore, and now Harry. Other people too. > But not Voldemort, not necessarily. He probably doesn't see things > that way or he wouldn't be as obsessed about pure blood lineage. > > [long theory main argument snipped - see message 36311] > > While I essentially agree with what you say, I don't agree with > the conclusions. I think that's not enough to drive Voldemort; > we know his main obsession is personal everlasting power, and the > theory about the Gryffindor heir makes a lot of sense to me in that > context. Unify once more: Both hold true. Harry may descend from RR, HH and CG. Voldemort descends from Slytherin(and passed some of that to Harry). Also his choices count for ALL houses, and his status as a unifier. This might explain all about where the money came from. It's also an added motivation for Voldemort: If the last heir to the other founders is dead, as the last heir to SS Voldemort inherits the entire Hogwarts... Just adding my pet theory of Voldemort's motives: he wants Hogwarts or something inside it! > A couple of comments: > - I always saw Harry's sorting as an epitome of JKR's "your choices > make what you are". Probably most of the students are given more than > one choice, according to their potentials. Take Hermione: she was > probably offered Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff too, and why not Slytherin > since she's ambitious? Neville had it on for a long time; Maybe the hat told him he's brave (and IMO he's the bravest of all) and Neville argued. Neville is the purest Gryffindor I've seen. The hat didn't have trouble deciding but convincing Neville he *does* belong to Gryffindor. Absolutely no ambition - definately not a Slytherin. He's *wise* in his way but not *smart* like Ravenclaw. With his continous forgetfulness he just won't go to Ravenclaw. Neville is extremely compassionate, but will stand up against his *friends* for what he believes is *right* - not for Hufflepuff. And his family *trying* to scare or anger him to do magic without success? Maybe Neville simply didn't get angry or scared, but that he trusted instead. Trusted that his family wasn't after letting him to get hurt. Magic came out by *accident*, when it was the only way for him to avoid crushing the ground... He may simply be too brave for his fears to show in magic. But just exactly why is Snape his WORST fear? Including Dementors, Voldemort, Death-Eaters, lots of other things he knows of... What comes *closest* is - crucio. (Indicating Neville's worst experience) - maybe it wasn't Crouch Jr. Maybe Snape was the third man (using Polyjuice) involved, and among the accused was the one he took the hair from! Neville may know that. He seems to have ability to see what other people are truly like with the lack of seeing himself so. (Sounds like the classic rule of fortune-telling: You can't See your *own* future). Why Snape? A person in a position of authority over him with no kindness or compassion - nor understanding to such feelings. A psychopath, who's just happened to follow the rules for a while, but Neville knows what he is... the type of person who *can* torture people/animals without regret, someone who *hates* a man who saved his life with passion... The only exception seems to be Draco; the hat > knew he was a Slytherin as soon as it was brought in contact with > him. Of course, Draco had already made his choice, but so had > Hermione. That may be significant: it might tells us Draco has indeed > none of the potentials associated with the other houses. I agree - Draco is as much a Slytherin as Neville is a Gryffindor. The Hat cried out for Draco immediately - took long time with Neville... Draco and Neville are opposites, much like Harry and Voldemort. > > *Standing back, and rereading this, my fingers are crossed that my > > first post isn't slammed too hard, > > I hope I haven't - welcome! Seconded. From Edblanning at aol.com Mon Mar 11 16:00:20 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 11:00:20 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's in a name? - Weasleys/Moody madness Message-ID: <6.254f3ea9.29be2e94@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36329 In a message dated 11/03/02 06:56:54 GMT Standard Time, siskiou at earthlink.net writes: > Sunday, March 10, 2002, 5:32:00 PM, Tabouli wrote: > > > It's all in the name, folks... > > Reading about all the possible meanings of characters names, > what about the Weasley family? > > Is that a "good" name to have in JKR's books? > > Where I grew up (Germany) it wasn't exactly a compliment to be > compared to a weasel. Oops had a problem with those old buttons again. Let's try and reply, this time. No, here in the UK, to be weasel isn't complimentary, although we do have the usage, 'to weasel something out', meaning to find something or find something out. But I think it's physical characteristics, in this family: tall, slim, red-haired. Goes of course with the geography: *Stoat*shead Hill and *Otter*y St Catchpole. *********************************************************** Regarding Crouch/Moody and the Imperius curse. He had one very good reason to teach Harry. Whom did we all not trust? Who was it hinted had put Harry's name in the Goblet? Who at Hogwarts was presumed to have used the Imperius in the past? Karkaroff.... who was obviously furious that Harry was in the tournament, who could be expected to favour his own champion, who had brought ?11 more students whom it is quite possible, given his own reputation, he had already taught to perform the Imperius. Crouch could reasonably expect that he would do anything to make his own champion win, including Imperio'ing Harry to throw the tournament. Harry, from Crouch/Moody's POV needed to be able to resist if he was to be sure of winning. Eloise > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From karen at infobreak.net Mon Mar 11 16:08:44 2002 From: karen at infobreak.net (sirius_kase) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:08:44 -0000 Subject: Motives with Magic. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36330 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "abigail_draconi" wrote: > I am not sure if this particular subject has been examined before, as I am new to the list and find the task of searching the archives rather daunting, but has anyone explored why Vernon is so fanatically anti-magic. His attitude seems, to me at least, to far surpass his wife's in terms of the hatred. Yet Petunia's the only one for whom we have a hunch as for why: jealousy over her sister Lily. Personally, I figure that Vernon, his father, or his grandfather had an *extremely* bad run in with magic or a magical person. @---<-- Chyna Rose > How about his wife and her family? I tend to go a little easier on Vernon than most around here. I think he is extremely protective of his family especially from what he sees as a powerful evil force that he doesn't understand. The discussion of magic is taboo in the Dursley household, I don't think that even the adults talk about it, so Vernon knows nothing more than the fact that Petunia's family was wiped out and that the mere mention of magic greatly upsets her. Petunia went out of her way to marry the most mundane muggle she could find and hasn't educated him much at all regarding magic. The letter from Dumbledore is probably all he knows and I suspect Petunia was so frightened by the sudden arrival of Harry that he didn't read the letter with an open mind. I wonder if he ever met James and Lily? From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com Mon Mar 11 16:57:35 2002 From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:57:35 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chess Game Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36331 >From: "adatole" >However, the choice of Knight makes perfect sense. It is the only >piece that can "jump" over other pieces. It has the ability to move >around the board the fastest (ie: is not confined to straight lines). >And while it is often sacrificed near the end of the game (when it is >no longer needed), that is usually after it has "herded" the >opponents pieces into position so that the bishop, queen, or rook >(castle) can swoop in for the final blow. Not to mention that it's appropriate for brash young Ron to adopt the piece that I think of as being the most 'offense oriented' of them all, with the ability to cleverly fork multiple pieces with threat of capture, forcing the opponent to decide which piece is worth more to him or her. It's one of the most strategically useful pieces on the board, IMHO. Potentially more interesting are the places where he puts Harry and Hermione. Harry takes the bishop's role. Discounting the relevance to the game itself, the bishop makes me think of purity of purpose and perhaps a connection to something of a greater power. And, well, Hermione as the rook only makes sense, she's the anchor of their little triad, resolutely trying to keep their feet on the ground when they get far-fetched ideas. (Perhaps even the rock to which Ron's heart is anchored, but I'll get off my R/H soapbox now...) J _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 14:26:37 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:26:37 -0000 Subject: What's in a name? - Weasleys In-Reply-To: <80164694434.20020310223958@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36332 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne wrote: > > > Hi, > > Sunday, March 10, 2002, 5:32:00 PM, Tabouli wrote: > > > It's all in the name, folks... > > Reading about all the possible meanings of characters names, > what about the Weasley family? > > Is that a "good" name to have in JKR's books? > > Where I grew up (Germany) it wasn't exactly a compliment to be > compared to a weasel. Not in the wizard-world, either. I recall Ron being offended by being called a weasel (by Draco Malfoy, who else). However, the coming of family names... Someone *chose* that name. I think a Weasley ancestor was a weasel-animagus. And all the four founders as well - Rowena Ravenclaw turned into raven, Helga Hufflepuff into badger, Codric Gryffindor into Lion/Griffin and Salazhar Slytherin into a snake (Slytherin is a bit dubious - snake in his crest may also refer to being a parseltongue, but that would be his animagus-form). From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 16:49:01 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:49:01 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore = Nicholas Flamel? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36333 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "brewpub44" wrote: > Ya know, I've been on this board for many months now, and I don't > think I've ever seen this discussed: > > Is Dumbledore really Nicholas Flamel? We never see old Nick in SS, do > we? I don't know of any evidence that shows it is not true, do you? > > My theory: DD is Nick. He changed his identity. The trick: first go > into obscurity. Notice how much trouble the kids have finding out who > Nick is? He's obviously been out of contemporary media, even if he > supposedly is alive. Then, wait many years, and pop back upon the > scene as Dumbledore. Notice no one has ever researched DD's bio in > any of the books. Do we even know if he went to Hogwarts? Or any > other school? I don't think it's even been mentioned. So he starts to > get acclaim for himself, and eventually rises to high levels of > prominence. Hermione mentioned he was in Gryffindor. (I /think/ it's in Hogwarts: A History). Also, Tom Riddle's Diary shows Dumbledore as a younger man, teaching transfiguration, and the Gryffindor Head of House. > Here's a quick list of the relevant anecdotes, pro & con, that I can > think of at the moment: > > Dumbledore's Chocolate Frog card bio mentions he works with Nicholas > Flamel, BUT that could be just the cover story he's created. > > Dumbledore battled Grindewald in 1945, this and other anecdotes show > he's quite old, BUT he could have simply sampled the fruits of Nick's > potions obtained with the Sorceror's Stone Well - I think not. > Hagrid slips up a lot in SS, but never slips about DD being Nick BUT > it is extremely likely DD is very clever about hiding that fact from > *everybody*. I doubt anyone would be old enough to know. *except* the ghosts! Prof. Binns might have been teaching Nicholas Flamel! > In Hermione's book, it talks about how Nicholas Flamel & his wife > Pernelle live a quiet life in Devon, BUT the book is described > as "very old." The quiet life bit corroborates Nick going into hiding > before re-emerging as DD, and the "very old" bit shows that Nick may > no longer even be in Devon anymore! He is definitely not mentioned in > Study of Recent Developments in Wizardry. Maybe Voldemort or Grindelwald killed him? But - he *could* be the monk-ghost! > At the end of SS, DD talks about the stone. "As much money and life > as you could want!" Now, reflect back to the Mirror of Erised. DD > says he only sees himself holding a pair of wool socks (which I see > as him being silly, not really meaning it). So if he doesn't really > have those desires, if he really has everything he wants, then isn't > it likely he can have as much gold as he wants, and is immortal? > Taking a cue from the Elves in the Lord of the Rings, nothing > eliminates desire like being immortal -- there's simply all the time > in the world to do whatever you want to do, kind of takes the fun out > of it. It doesn't fit Dumbledore's character. He's reached satisfaction not because his desires are fulfilled, but because he has learned not to desire (or desire things easy to get). A man at the age of 150 or more - a man who's ready to die (death is the next great adventure) and happens to have cold feet might indeed want a pair of knitted socks (ones made with love, just for him) suits AD-philosophy very well. Knitted, self-made socks is what you give to a beloved grandfather, but the things AD gets: books, valuables... are things given to Headmaster. He misses the love. He'd like to be the beloved grandfather--- we do know he had a wife, but did does he have children/grandchildren/greatgrandchildren - at Hogwarts? Snape? McGonagall? > He does talk about how Nick & Pernelle will die, AND he does seem > older to Harry at the end of GoF, BUT that was a very traumatic book, > so it would only make sense to look older, no matter who you are. He's talked about how very old he is since book #1! I don't recall him talking anything about Nick... > Finally (just because I'm tired of typing), many times in the four > books it is insinuated that DD knows many of the "ancient magics". > Well, he bloody well should if he's Nicholas Flamel! Or he just listens to the various ghosts, merpeople, centaurs and never stopped studying... And "ancient magics" date back to the time when Pharaohs ruled in Egypt IMO, before NF was even born... From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 17:31:56 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:31:56 -0000 Subject: Some Sirius Black Questions. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36334 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: saw it at the time), we don't know. > > > > Oh yeah, and I know he can stay inconspicuous by being a dog, but how > > do you hide a hippogriff? > > You fly it down to the tropics and hide it in the lush undergrowth. > Or so it would seem. Hmm... Hippogriffs may be able to hide themselves. There IS an illusionary charm that can be put on various creatures to keep Muggles from noticing them. (owners of creatures who don't hide themselves are required to) Sirius didn't have a wand, but surely Lupin could do that much... What if Lupin joined Sirius, at least for a time in Shrieking Shack/ a moment in the South...? From karen at infobreak.net Mon Mar 11 14:52:41 2002 From: karen at infobreak.net (sirius_kase) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:52:41 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Sirius' guilt (Was: Clearing Sirius/ Dumbledore's gleam) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36335 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jklb66" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" wrote: > I wrote: > >Dumbledore can't testify for Sirius because he doesn't have any > >first hand knowledge of Sirius's innocence. All he could say > >is, "Sirius told me he is innocent, and I believed him." > > And Mariane replied: > > Which brings up a question regarding Dumbledore and Sirius. We > >know that Dumbledore believed that Sirius was the Potters' Secret > >Keeper. He told the MOM that was the case once Sirius was in custody > >after the confrontation with Pettigrew. > > > > What I wonder is this: Did Dumbledore believe the (admittedly) > > overwhelming evidence of Sirius' guilt and write him off as the > >worst kind of traitor? Or did he try to visit Sirius either before > >or right after he was sent to Azkaban to get Sirius' version of the > >story? If so, was he not allowed this visit? That strikes me as > >odd. I would think that someone as well-known, respected and > >powerful as Dumbledore would be able to get at least fifteen minutes > >to see a prisoner, even if the only way he could do it was to call > >in some favors. > > > > And, if he was allowed the visit, obviously Sirius was not able to > > convince Dumbledore that he was innocent. And, if that was the > >case, why does Dumbledore suddenly believe him in PoA? He has no > >more concrete evidence - he hasn't seen Pettigrew, he hears Snape's > > version of events, and Remus is not available to offer any > > explanations. All he has to go on are the observations of Harry > >and Hermione and whatever Sirius told him while being held in > >Flitwick's office. Is it Harry/Hermione's explanation that convinces > >Dumbledore? > > Actually, Dumbledore seems to believe Sirius even before he reaches > Harry & Hermione in the hospital wing. When he arrives, I'm sure > their insisting that Sirius is innocent confirmed Sirius's story for > him, but look at his actions even before H&H can say a word-- he > kicks everyone out of the room so he can speak to H&H privately. > There is no need to do that in order to hear if H&H's story match > Sirius's; he does this so he can tell them to use the time-turner. > > So, somehow, Sirius did convince Dumbledore that he was innocent. > Perhaps part of it was that Sirius's story this time was one that 4 > other witnesses (Lupin, HRH) could either confirm or deny, so there > was no point in lying (other than to buy a few more dementor-free > moments). > > It does make me think that Dumbledore and Sirius did NOT speak before > he was sent to Azkaban. Why didn't Dumbledore question him? Either > the MoM prevented it, or Dumbledore was so convinced of Sirius's > guilt in the wake of Peter's murder that he couldn't or wouldn't > speak to him. Dumbledore is probably kicking himself for that now! > > -Jennifer Dumbledore has a piece of information that you didn't mention. Remember, he already knows that Buckbeak escaped, probably freed by someone. In fact, he may have have looked out the window and seen Harry in the garden with Buckbeak. He stalled a little for time and then when the execution committee came out and discovered Buckbeak missing, he made his amused "search the sky" remark and requested that they all go back into Hagrid's hut for a cup of tea. At some point, Dumbledore realized that in order for Harry and Hermione to free Buckbeak, they would need to time travel. He had to do something so that what he knew must happen would happen. When interviewing Sirius, Dumbledore figured that Buckbeak needed a companion, he wouldn't escape on his own and that Sirius story made enough sense to believe. Sirius Kase From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 18:33:20 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 18:33:20 -0000 Subject: Wizard coinage, blood ties, the puffskein In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36336 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "saintbacchus" wrote: > Jo wonders: > > << > Maybe it was the fact of the 'heads and tails' sides > with the shapes stamped on the coin that was weird too. > Anyone know if wizard money has anything on it if they > only have the three types of coins in different colours? > >> > > It seems like engraved images are universal in the > Muggle world, so I don't see why it wouldn't be in the > Wizarding World as well. The big problem I see is how > they could limit themselves to six images from a world's > worth of wizards. Are Galleons, Sickles and Knuts only > UK currency? I don't know if I buy the idea that the WW > is so well-connected and has been for such a long time > that there are no currency divisions. > > Whichever is the case, what do you suppose would be on > each piece? I'm straining my brain, but I can't think > of anyone mentioned who stands out quite enough to be > stamped on a coin, nor any particular wizard symbol, nor > any particular saying. Maybe every time a new Minister > of Magic is appointed, they start minting coins with his > face on. Or maybe there are whole series of Sickles with > historical figures. Thoughts? > Well... I think the Galleon has the image of Merlin who's obviously gained the ultimate respect. (Enough for wizards to be swearing by Merlin's beard - or Order of Merlin being highest rated prize there is). The otherside has a galleon sailing around the sea printed on it... Or why did you think they call it a Galleon? Sickle - Moon Sickle... Phases of Moon, perhaps? Hmm... Who ever is Minister of Magic? (with a chancing picture, of course) Or another Merlin? Knuts... A magical knot that tied the World - Unifier, Dumbledore. Or another Merlin... From slinkie at nids.se Mon Mar 11 18:23:41 2002 From: slinkie at nids.se (eledhwen_0) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 18:23:41 -0000 Subject: Some Sirius Black Questions. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36337 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nyarth_meow" wrote: > Apologies if this has been covered before, but I was wondering if I'm > the only person who thinks Black isn't quite all that he appears? > OK, all I have is gut-feeling and no real evidence, but I'm > interested to know if anyone else has the same? > > I just can't help thinking he's too good to be true, and that Harry > trusts him *way* too readily. Within the space of an hour, he goes > from Sirius Black, evil parent-killing traitor, to Sirius Black, can > I move in with you please? > In that space of time, IMHO, Black might have proved his innocence, > but he doesn't give a very good account of himself. He breaks Ron's > leg without remorse, is all set to kill a man in cold blood, and pays > *very* little attention initially to Harry in his obsession with > Wormtail. And why did he slash holes in the Fat Lady? If nothing > else, he's not very stable. I agree with you. He does not act like a nice guy. This could be explained by saying that he spent several years in Azcaban (not very good for your mental health) and that he still desperatly wants to avenge james and Lily. Maybe he was very emotional to begin with and now he has gone temporarily mad. There is one thing that really bothers me about his actions though. It is when Harry attacks him and Sirius tries to choke Harry. If he went through so much trouble to save Harry from Pettigrew, why did he tried to choke him? He might not have meant to seriuosly hurt Harry, but even doing a bit of harm to a boy that is supposed to be almost like a son to you seems a bit odd. Maybe he thought that it was worth to hurt Harry a bit if it meant saving him from the filthy traitor that murdered his parents. Who knows? If you have any theories please reply. Eledhwen From trog at wincom.net Mon Mar 11 16:04:43 2002 From: trog at wincom.net (talondg) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:04:43 -0000 Subject: Unifying Theory / Sorting hat / Voldemort and Hitler (re: Unifying Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36338 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elirtai" wrote: > - About Voldemort's parallelisms with Hitler, they don't end here. > V hates halfbloods even though he's one himself. Hitler believed in > an ideal race with particular physical features, but he wouldn't > have qualified for it himself! And it goes on from even there too - the pensive trials are suggestive of the Nurmburg war-crimes trials (and of the McCarthy communism hearings, just to keep things a little more morally ambiguous) Aurors strike me as being analogous with Isreali Nazi- hunters. And so on and so forth. What amazes me though is the depth that JKR has put into this essential core conflict. It would be straightforward enought to make the simple connections that Voldy == Hitler, and the Death Eaters == Nazis, and then retell WW2, but she's gone for more subtlely and depth. For one, there exist non Death Eaters who believe in the purity of blood and "good breeding" - Fudge, for one. They may not go so far as to espouse the idea of _actually killing_ the impure-blooded as the DEs do, but there does seem to be an underlying belief amongst many wizards that pure-bloods are somehow preferable to half-breeds. Replace "pure-bloods" with "nobility" and "half-breeds" with "commoners", and you might be able to see where this is coming from. English nobility revolves around hereditary titles (ie, blood) and while the days of inhertied supreme executive power in Britain are long gone, a noble bloodline still has its perks. It wasn't all that long ago, for example, that being a Peer would garentee your son an officer's commission in the Royal Army/Navy - the idea being that children of the nobility would have been brought up to lead, and so would automatically make good leaders. Now it's a hell of a journey from the English "good breeding makes for good people" ideal of the nobility, to the Nazi "eliminate those not of the Master Race" policy, but one could argue that they form opposite ends of the same spectrum, differing only by degree. Interesting too is that the Nazis formed the offical, semi-legitimate (at least at first) ruling party of Germany. Not all Germans were aware of just how rotten the core really was. A lot of Germans joined the Party (or worked alongside or with them) because they _were_ the German government, and because they appealed to such things as a restored sense of German pride, revenge against the injustices of the Treaty of Versailles, renewed economic prosparity, and the efficiant running of the country (making the trains run on time). Not all Germans, nor even all Nazis, were believers in the whole "master race" policy. Compare with the Death Eaters, who while it seems they may have had a great deal of influence and caused a great deal of fear, they did not seem to wield any sort of legitimate power when they were most active. Where a Nazi in 1939 could proudly wear his party pin in public, the Death Eaters seem to have been (and remain) a secret society. As such, they have more in common with the Klu Klux Klan than they do the Nazis - the big difference _there_ being that even at their height, the Klan was never very effectual, in so far that the Klan never had much influence on Federal politics, the way the DE's affect the policies of the Ministry of Magic. Compare _this_ to the Communists, who _did_ have far-reaching influence on American Federal politics, but who were nowhere _near_ as subversive, dangerous, and evil as they were made out to be. (The number one reason for spying for the Soviets in the McCarthy era was short-term personal financial gain. Number two was a desire to not see the US become the world hegemon, and so spies would pass info to the Soviets in an attempt to keep the world playing field level. For a spy in this category, he was working to keep the world safe from the Evil Americans) So while there are elements of the Nazis, the Klan, and McCarthy-era Communist hunting in the Death Eaters, they are not _directly_ analogous to _any_ of these groups - which I think shows remarkable depth. It prevents the books from deteriorating into cheap allegory, and instead to help re-enforce the theme that "choices, not breeding, define the worth of a person". A reader gets glimpses of elements that happened in Real Life, which serves to buttress the validity of the theme, but it never degenerates into "Oh, this is just Nazis with wands" (at which point you know the story anyway, so why continue reading?) Impressive. Doubly so in that this is ostensibly "children's" literature. DG ***Mod Note: Please remember that any discussion of these sensitive topics is only allowed on the list *as related to* the books. OT discussion of the Holocaust is specifically banned, and we want to remind people to be careful as they approach their replies to keep personal invective and opinion about hate groups out of their responses relative to HP. Comparison is inevitable; however, we're here to talk about the Potterverse, not to mount soapboxes for or against radical political/social/moral groups.*** From chynarose8 at hotmail.com Mon Mar 11 16:35:16 2002 From: chynarose8 at hotmail.com (abigail_draconi) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:35:16 -0000 Subject: Motives with Magic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36339 Sirus_kas brings up the point to my question/argument: >>How about his wife and her family?<< Personally I see Petunia's hatred of magic as steming from Issues dealing with her sister Lily. Which given the fact that Petunia was pretty much shoved into Lily's shadow (as evidenced by her scathing comment about Lily blithly transfiguring teacups in the first book) is understandable; especially if Petunia's begining to show some gulit over not patching things up before Lily was killed. But then, I happen to be sympathetic of Petunia and usualy make her less of a vilainous relative than her husband. "abigail_draconi" From saramull at optonline.net Mon Mar 11 18:58:36 2002 From: saramull at optonline.net (sarah28962000) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 18:58:36 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36340 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" wrote: we do know he had a wife We do? Where does it say that??? Or did you mean Flamel had a wife? And speaking of which, when do the Hogwarts staff have time for any personal life at all? They live at the school, are on call at all hours, and even stay over the Holidays. How much of a relationship can you have with only 2 months a year available? Sarah From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Mon Mar 11 19:48:50 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 11:48:50 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Florence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <776240080.20020311114850@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36341 Okay, here's a crazy thought: What if the guy Bertha saw kissing Florence was one Tom M. Riddle? -- Dave From jklb66 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 19:47:03 2002 From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 19:47:03 -0000 Subject: Petrified Mrs. Norris In-Reply-To: <00bf01c1c854$0fc71d40$c331c2cb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36342 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" wrote: > OK, so the Basilisk left behind by Salazar is being sneaked out by >his Heir out through the sink, aiming to rid the school of Muggle- >Borns. Later he moves on to target Harry, of course, but at the >start he's definitely after Muggle-Borns. [Snip] What would Salazar >(and, presumably, Voldemort) think of Squibs? Well, not much, I'd >guess. [Snip](Muggle-borns are dangerous because they *have* power, >they can compete with Pureblood Wizards on an equal footing yet may >have lingering loyalty to the Muggles whence they came.) [Snip] >So. If we accept that Squibs are an unlikely first target for >Salazar, the events in CoS look odd indeed. Why, when the school is >teeming with menacing Muggle-borns, is the *first* creature to be >attacked by a Basilisk wielding Tom Riddle not a Muggle-born but, >*apparently*, a mere cat? I've always been of the opinion that Mrs. Norris was just an accidental first victim. Tom had finally gotten enough control over Ginny to go fetch his pet basilisk and go muggle-born hunting. The basilisk comes out of the bathroom, and oops! Mrs. Norris happens to be there looking at the puddle. The fact that she gets petrified right outside the bathroom supports this. It isn't like the basilisk tracked her down in some remote part of the castle. From that point on, Tom chooses his targets with care and more stealth. It also works from a story-telling POV because it leads to Harry getting falsely accused right away. With Mrs. Norris attacked, Filch is sure to accuse someone, and Harry happens to been given a "motive" (at least in Filch's eyes). Look at the next victim, Colin. Would his attack have led to anyone accusing Harry? No. Harry had been patient with Colin's hero-worship. But once Harry had already been accused, then people could say, "Well, Colin has been annoying Harry." -Jennifer "Oh, well...I'd just been thinking...if you had died, you'd have been welcome to share my toilet," said Myrtle, blushing silver. From Jefrigo21 at aol.com Mon Mar 11 19:58:03 2002 From: Jefrigo21 at aol.com (Jefrigo21 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:58:03 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Florence Message-ID: <188.4a289c2.29be664b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36343 Hold on I thought it was sanpe kissin Florence and not Riddle. I am sorry this is so short but that we find out is in GoF. In a message dated Mon, 11 Mar 2002 2:50:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, Dave Hardenbrook writes: > Okay, here's a crazy thought: What if the guy Bertha saw kissing > Florence was one Tom M. Riddle? > > -- > Dave > > > ________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 moongirlk at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 21:14:31 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (moongirlk) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:14:31 -0000 Subject: Neville and the boggart In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36344 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., wrote: > Elkins said: > > "I'll even let you in on a little secret here. I thought that Lupin's oh-so-blatant "let's bolster Neville's confidence" was kind of condescending too, to tell you the truth." > > "But it does strain my suspension of disbelief somewhat to think that Neville does *not* notice the pity and the condescension, or that these things do not, on some level, bother him." > > Porphyria, who thinks teaching is very hard, made my day by replying (in part): > Lupin forces Neville to act braver than he feels. He assumes that >Neville is competent and obliges him to act up to that high >estimation. He's almost cruel to him in that he unhesitatingly makes >the kid sweat, but despite his hardly surpressed smile, he seems to >know that Neville will rise to the occasion. To me this is the >opposite of condescension; condescension and pity involve *assuming* >that a person isn't capable of much; that they are inferior to you. >This is what Snape does, not Lupin. > > Maybe it depends on how you see things personally, but I think this >is a brilliant way to handle Neville at this point. The kid *really* >is afraid and Lupin teaches him a way to confront his fears -- both >through the technique of imagining a specific fear, in this case, in >drag, but also by forcing him to realize that he's capable of taking >an active stand against his fear of failure and humiliation in >general; now Neville knows he can cast a useful charm in front of a >whole class and make it look easy. Somebody get this girl a badge of some sort! Elkins, do you realize what she's done? She's not only cleared up the apparent condescention of Lupin, which somehow I knew couldn't be right, even if I didn't have the right answer. She's also managed to place the incident neatly in the realm of his Edge! Go Porphyria (who's name I just had to copy and paste so as not to spell it wrong)! Seriously, though, now that I see it explained this way, I definitely think you're right. There is a distinct difference between Lupin's actions and Hermione's. Hermione's intentions are good, as always, but she sees Neville as incapable of doing things on his own, and her help seems often of the "give a man a fish" variety. What Lupin did was what some people think Snape is trying to do with some students - he toughened him up by putting him on the spot, but in a far less cruel way than Snape would, and with an expectation of success that Snape might at one point have had with some of his students, but no longer does if his "dunderhead" comment means anything. kimberly From jmmears at prodigy.net Mon Mar 11 21:21:52 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:21:52 -0000 Subject: Some Sirius Black Questions. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36345 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "eledhwen_0" wrote: There is one thing that really > bothers me about his actions though. It is when Harry attacks him and > Sirius tries to choke Harry. If he went through so much trouble to > save Harry from Pettigrew, why did he tried to choke him? He might > not have meant to seriuosly hurt Harry, but even doing a bit of harm > to a boy that is supposed to be almost like a son to you seems a bit > odd. Maybe he thought that it was worth to hurt Harry a bit if it > meant saving him from the filthy traitor that murdered his parents. > Who knows? If you have any theories please reply. > I've seen this point brought up several times and it always sort of puzzles me. In all the times I've read that scene in PofA, I've never been particularly bothered by Sirius choking Harry. Does anyone *seriously* think that Sirius meant to really hurt Harry? The way I read this is that they are locked in hand to hand combat, (Harry having attacked him in a blind rage)and the only way he can get Harry off him is to grab him by the throat and squeeze until he lets go. Remember that Black is in a starved, wasted condition, and as such, Harry could *really* injure him if he continues to go at him. Of course it's very upsetting to read but it's meant to be an very intense scene. I also don't understand the idea that Sirius is supposed to be a terrible person because Ron's leg was broken in the process of being dragged down to the Shrieking Shack. He was dragging him down there in desperate anticipation of Harry following them. The only reason Ron's leg broke is that he had hooked it around a root to resist being dragged away, not because Black was really trying to hurt him. Believe me, no one gets more upset than I do when anyone harms little Ronniekins, but in the Wizarding World broken bones don't seem to be any bigger deal than a bad hangnail. It's really interesting to see all the different ways we all seem to read the same books. Jo Serenadust From rshuson80 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 21:46:09 2002 From: rshuson80 at yahoo.com (nyarth_meow) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:46:09 -0000 Subject: Barty Crouch, Jr and Mystery Death Eaters In-Reply-To: <036f01c1c8cf$bb7b73e0$03fea8c0@death-computer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36346 Jamie says: When Voldemort is resurrected, he only accounts for the > Lestranges being in Azkaban. There are the three that died in his service, > but I imagine they were killed before Voldemort's fall. Two of these were Evan Rosier, and someone called Wilkes, both of whom were friends of Snape's while at Hogwarts. Black says in GoF "they were both killed by aurors the year before Voldemort fell". The third, we don't yet know. Jamie then says The one who was too > afraid to return was Karkaroff, and the one who has left forever is Snape - > is that correct? So that's one mystery Death Eater, which begs the > question, how many Death Eaters are there? Are there more than just the > ones Voldemort named, in the same way that there must be more Gryffindor > girls in Hermione's dorm that don't get mentioned? > I think in GoF it says Voldemort passed by some people in his circle without comment. Perhaps he passed by some gaps without comment too? As for the identities of "one too frightened to return" and "one who has left me forever" we *assume* are Karkaroff and Snape respectively, but I do wonder whether this is just what we are meant to assume? JKR and her red herrings. Maybe Snape was present in the circle of DE's that night, and Voldemort walked past him without comment? Is there any good reason why not? He could easily have apparated back in time to bounce into Moody's office looking menacing, and then check out his reflection in the Foe Glass ("Who's that ugly git? He looks like my mother.") I know Dumbledore claimed to have realised Moody was up to no good because he moved Harry after D said not to, but maybe the returning Snape tipped him off? Dumbledore then lied about it to cover for Snape as a spy? Just a thought. Nyarth, who has decided not to ever rule anything out when it comes to JK Rowling. From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu Mon Mar 11 21:56:55 2002 From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (Hillman, Lee) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:56:55 -0500 Subject: Sirius choking Harry; Florence and Riddle Message-ID: <95774A6A6036D411AFEA00D0B73C864303B058F7@exmc3.urmc.rochester.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 36347 Greetings! Some quick observations: First, Sirius Black. Eledhwen asks: > There is one thing that really > bothers me about his actions though. It is when Harry attacks him and > Sirius tries to choke Harry. If he went through so much trouble to > save Harry from Pettigrew, why did he tried to choke him? And Jo Serenadust supplied: > The way I read this is that they are locked in hand to hand combat, > (Harry having attacked him in a blind rage)and the only way he can > get Harry off him is to grab him by the throat and squeeze until he > lets go. Remember that Black is in a starved, wasted condition, and > as such, Harry could *really* injure him if he continues to go at > him. Of course it's very upsetting to read but it's meant to be an > very intense scene.> While this has been discussed before, I believe Sirius is in fact not too sane at this point in time. I attribute his condition to a form of Post-traumatic stress, and at this point, Harry is in his way. He isn't thinking about it being Harry, he isn't thinking about the consequences. He's only processing the fact that Harry is preventing him from reaching his stated goal: to kill Peter Pettigrew. Another of Sirius's violent actions occurs when he is prevented from doing what he wishes to do: he slashes the portrait because the Fat Lady will not let him in. I don't have time to construct arguments for his other violent acts: Ron's leg and slashing Ron's curtains, except that these are actions he takes as means to ends. He slashes the curtains in his haste to reach Pettigrew; he breaks Ron's leg because he has to get Ron into the tunnel and Ron is fighting. In short, Sirius's thinking during PoA is very linear, not allowing for a lot of options. If something gets in his way, he strikes out to go through it, rather than around. Crookshanks is the one who allows him other methods of doing, like stealing Neville's list of passwords. And a brief moment to strike down Dave's theory linking Florence and TM Riddle: Florence cannot have been kissing Riddle because Bertha Jorkins saw and reported Florence and her Lothario (be he Snape or someone else). Bertha is a contemporary of Sirius, Snape, and Lupin (a few years ahead of them, acc. to Sirius in GoF), and as we know, that generation is about 40 years (give or take) behind Riddle. Riddle left the school in 1944 or thereabouts; according to the timeline, the Marauder generation attended Hogwarts from about 1970 to about 1977. Gwen From jmyers at sunflower.com Mon Mar 11 21:53:44 2002 From: jmyers at sunflower.com (lord_chromag) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:53:44 -0000 Subject: Barty Crouch, Jr and Mystery Death Eaters In-Reply-To: <036f01c1c8cf$bb7b73e0$03fea8c0@death-computer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36348 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jamie Lipton" wrote: > I've just been rereading GoF - ... > *snip* > Does anyone else think that, while Crouch Jr. > was certainly guilty of being a Death Eater, he > may not have been guilty of using an > Unforgiveable Curse? If I am remembering correctly, he most certainly was guilty of using the Imperious Curse to make Krum use the Cruciatus curse on the other Champions in the TWT. That being the case, it is not too much of a stretch to think that he had done so before. > It's come up before that > maybe he was under the Imperious Curse. How > else could a man who spent most of his adult > life in Azkaban perform such difficult magic > unassisted? It is emphasized that he is a very > young man at this trial - probably just out of > Hogwarts. As he was indeed a Death Eater, he probaly not only had most expert tutoring in the Dark Arts, but he had other opportunities to practice them. There is also no indication as to how long he had been a Death Eater, he could have even been one during part of his time at Hogwarts. > It seems unlikely to me that such a > young man with no family background in the Dark > Arts should be able to perform the Cruciatus > curse to the degree required to drive the > Longbottoms to insanity. As we have seen the effects of the Cruciatus Curse already, it seems that Longbottoms suffered either several simultaneous curses and/or an exceptionally prolonged session, as the curse in and of itself does not seem to make a person insane. I assume that he was one of those participating. > Who are the other Death Eaters involved in that > trial? There are two men and a woman - one of > those men and the women might be the > Lestranges? Who is the last man? Anyone we > know? Whoever he is, we can presume he is > still in Azkaban. When Voldemort is > resurrected, he only accounts for the > Lestranges being in Azkaban. There are the > three that died in his service, but I imagine > they were killed before Voldemort's fall. The > one who was too afraid to return was Karkaroff, > and the one who has left forever is Snape - is > that correct? So that's one mystery Death > Eater, which begs the question, how many Death > Eaters are there? Are there more than just the > ones Voldemort named, in the same way that > there must be more Gryffindor girls in > Hermione's dorm that don't get mentioned? > > - Jamie To me this has always been fuzzy. We know that JKR is masterful at leading us to false conclusions, even while she leaves us enough clues so afterwards it seems plain that everything we read was true.. it wasn't pointing to what we thought it was. I took a few minutes to re-read those scenes from GOF and certain things strike me. Not all of the DEs present are named. Not all of the missing DEs are named/mentioned. We are not explicitly given the identities of the 3 Mystery DEs. They are the Faithful Servant (FS), the One-who-left-forever (LF), and the One-who-is-too-scared (TS). I feel confident that JKR is sowing some confusion here intentionally, as all of the others are identified all too well. I feel certain that whatever the identities of the unnamed and the Mystery DEs are will play an important part in the remaining books. Who they are will contain at least one unexpected twist. How Snape as a spy fits into this is the biggest mystery to me. How can he be the LF if he is able to go spy for Dumbledore again at the end of GOF? Or is he not mentioned there at all? What if he was one of the unmentioned DEs who was standing there in a mask? If so was he intentionally doing small things to help Harry escape? - Jerry Myers "Don't let the Muggles get you down!" From siskiou at earthlink.net Mon Mar 11 22:21:38 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:21:38 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Some Sirius Black Questions. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7814314672.20020311142138@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36349 Hi, Monday, March 11, 2002, 1:21:52 PM, serenadust wrote: > I also don't understand the idea that Sirius is supposed to be a > terrible person because Ron's leg was broken in the process of being > dragged down to the Shrieking Shack. He was dragging him down there > in desperate anticipation of Harry following them. The only reason > Ron's leg broke is that he had hooked it around a root to resist > being dragged away, not because Black was really trying to hurt him. Yeah, but hurt it does, even if it is relatively easy to repair later on. And Sirius seems so focused on killing Peter, that he doesn't care hurting Harry (maybe understandably, since Harry attacked him) and Ron, again. Scene taken out of PoA: > "I meant to," he growled, his yellow teeth bared, "but little >Peter got the better of me... not this time, though!" > And Crookshanks was thrown to the floor as Black lunged at >Scabbers; Ron yelled with pain as Black's weight fell on his >broken leg.< And why, exactly did Black want Harry to follow, anyhow? As a witness? To explain his innocence to Harry? I guess nobody besides Lupin would have believed him, if they hadn't seen Scabbers transform into Pettigrew. Maybe he should have planned on more witnesses? Would he have been able to persuade Dumbledore to listen and watch, if he had tried? -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From Edblanning at aol.com Mon Mar 11 21:56:01 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:56:01 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Florence Message-ID: <86.17b4e0ac.29be81f1@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36350 In a message dated 11/03/02 19:51:03 GMT Standard Time, DaveH47 at mindspring.com writes: > Okay, here's a crazy thought: What if the guy Bertha saw kissing > Florence was one Tom M. Riddle? > Sorry, doesn't work. Tom Riddle was at school 50 years before Harry (leaves 1945, according to the Lexicon). Bertha was a contemporary of Sirius and therefore of James Potter, who attended Hogwarts in the 1970's. Nice idea, though (if crazy :-)! ) Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chynarose8 at hotmail.com Mon Mar 11 16:21:29 2002 From: chynarose8 at hotmail.com (abigail_draconi) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:21:29 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Upkeep and Lack of Tuition Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36351 In a recent post, finwitch wrote: >> This might explain all about where the money came from. It's also an added motivation for Voldemort: If the last heir to the other founders is dead, as the last heir to SS Voldemort inherits the entire Hogwarts... Just adding my pet theory of Voldemort's motives: he wants Hogwarts or something inside it!<< Which brought up a question in my mind. Where does Hogwarts get its funds to continue running at all, let alone at the level of decadence that it apparently does? I happen to go to a City University of New York and I *still* have to pay a tuition although I live a bout a mile from it. And from every referance of bording and privite schools I've seen (and I am by no means an experet) tuition plays a roll. Yet there is no mention of it in any of the books. And given the finacial attitudes of some of the characters, we would've heard about it if there was one. @---<-- Chyna Rose From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Mar 11 22:43:04 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:43:04 -0000 Subject: Barty Crouch, Jr and Mystery Death Eaters In-Reply-To: <036f01c1c8cf$bb7b73e0$03fea8c0@death-computer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36352 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jamie Lipton" wrote: > Upon his conviction, Crouch Jr. cries out to his parents that he didn't do > it, and we assume that he is lying. Actually, that part still gets at my emotions so successfully, that I start wondering if he's telling the truth every time I read. >At the end of GoF, we find out for > certain (unless the Veritaserum is faulty, but let's not go there) that > Crouch Jr. was and is still a Death Eater, but he is not asked about whether > or not he really tortured the Longbottoms. Yes! Interesting ommission, isn't it? > Does anyone else think that, while Crouch Jr. was certainly guilty of being > a Death Eater, he may not have been guilty of using an Unforgiveable Curse? He saved Neville's life too. Of course, he did. It's not in canon. But it's obvious. :-) Life-debts and everything...... > Who > is the last man? Anyone we know? Whoever he is, we can presume he is still > in Azkaban. /me calls to Cindy, Elkins, and Avery (still dripping wet and cowering under Cindy's tough gaze) "Let's row the Fourth Man kayak over here to talk with Jamie, OK?" Are you familiar with Fourth Man Avery? Here he is. Fourth Man Avery went to Azkaban with Crouch Jr., Mrs. and Mr. Lestrange. However, he's out now, and feeling guilty about how he "wormed" his way out of trouble (to quote Sirius), while Mr. and Mrs. Lestrange stayed faithful to the Dark Lord. >When Voldemort is resurrected, he only accounts for the > Lestranges being in Azkaban. Yes, why doesn't he mention his fourth faithful DE? Because Avery wasn't faithful. You can see in the graveyard scene that Avery feels he's done something very big. Disowned Voldemort. Avery comes with sidehelpings of Imperius, Remorse, and whatever else you want to add. Relevant posts are #35062 and follow-ups. But remember that the crew of the Avery kayak: Elkins, Cindy, Eileen (and anyone else?) are rather bloodyminded people, and are also into bloody ambushes. Eileen, still smarting from being called a SYNCHOPHANT by Elkins, but not sure how to deny it. (I'm the person who belongs to LOLLIPOPS, calls herself a Georgian, takes turns steering the Big Bang destroyer, flirts with TEWWW EWWWW TEWWW be TREWWWW, has sympathies with Faith, and kept rushing between Elkins and Cindy on timeline issues - until they made their peace.) From ohtoresonate at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 22:44:21 2002 From: ohtoresonate at yahoo.com (ohtoresonate) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:44:21 -0000 Subject: What's in a name? - Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36353 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Sunday, March 10, 2002, 5:32:00 PM, Tabouli wrote: > > > > > It's all in the name, folks... > > > > Reading about all the possible meanings of characters names, > > what about the Weasley family? > > > > Is that a "good" name to have in JKR's books? > > > > Where I grew up (Germany) it wasn't exactly a compliment to be > > compared to a weasel. > > Not in the wizard-world, either. I recall Ron being offended by being > called a weasel (by Draco Malfoy, who else). However, the coming of > family names... Someone *chose* that name. I think a Weasley ancestor > was a weasel-animagus. Though most people in this fandom and in HP fan fiction (like Malfoy in canon) conclude that the Weasleys' last name somehow connect them to weasels, I find little to no evidence to support this assumption. Of course, I would be happy to entertain this theory if people can cite canon text as support. :) In fact, if you look at the structure of English names, you will find that names ending in -ley or -ly usually indicate an association with fields. For example, "Stan-ley" means stony field and "Wes-ley" means field of the west. So going by this pattern, Weas-ley should mean fields of weas? Hmm seeing how Quidditch evolved (IMO, rather arbitrarily) from Queer Ditch and Snitch from Snidge (and incidentally, "blimey" from "blind me"), I can't even begin to hazard a guess as to what the original word for "weas" could possibly be. Anyone? :) OTR From midgiecat at aol.com Mon Mar 11 22:46:58 2002 From: midgiecat at aol.com (midgiecat at aol.com) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:46:58 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 1729 Message-ID: <175.4e2cef5.29be8de2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36354 Re: "naamagatus" Subject: Animagus Transformation & Naked Wizards (WAS Sartorial blind-spots, ) > In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Elkins wrote: > > >You know, I have to admit that it never once occurred to me to > > wonder what Pettigrew was wearing in Shrieking Shack. cringing> snip > So where is Pettigrew's wand? It should have transformed with him, > but he appears not to have it. snip > Pettigrew had his wand blow *itself* up. He yells out, then he drops the wand, > transforms, scurries, and then the wand explodes before the muggles > know what hit them. Now *that* would generate some seriously lethal > magical energy. So they never found Pettigrew's wand because it no > longer exists. snip I agree with the wand getting blown up with Peter. Otherwise, anytime a wizard was blown up, wouldn't their wands be found?? Such as in the case of Lily and James. After their "blowup" wouldn't their wands be found at the scene and taken? The only thing removed from that scene was baby Harry. Brenda W. an avid reader of fanfic. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lalybi2004 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 22:33:14 2002 From: lalybi2004 at yahoo.com (Laurie Bidrawn) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:33:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: Ron as Knight (was Chess Game) In-Reply-To: <1015882319.4117.5117.m8@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020311223314.7246.qmail@web10708.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36355 I just thought I should finally dive right in at some point. I've been lurking around for about 2 months reading all of the theories and enjoying the discussions. I must admit it is nice to find others that like the HP world like myself, if not even more as I see these really long posts that are quite fun to read! :) Anyways, being a "newbie" I hope I don't step on any toes. Apologies already on their way if I do....and now, to why I wanted to post in the first place... >From: "adatole" >And while it is often sacrificed near the end of the >game (when it is no longer needed >From: "Jake Storm" >It's one of the most strategically >useful pieces on the board, IMHO. ***Now Me*** I like the fact of Ron as the knight in the chess game. I don't remember it being mentioned, but talking about why Ron would want to be the knight gave me the idea (somewhat influenced by the movie) that sitting atop the knight's noble steed would also be of great value to Ron being able to witness the action from a bit of a higher perspective. Since he was calling all of the shots, it only seems reasonable that he be given a bit of an advantage on which to see how the playing is going. Also, I like the comment that the knight is then "sacrificed when no longer needed" for it is then the perfect piece for Ron who, I think, then shows he's worth being in the Trio as much as the other two who have already shown intelligence in Hermione's case, and well, Harry is...Harry! :) Personally, I must say that SS is, IMHO, one of the greater times the Trio is on even footing in their conqest. I think Ron sometimes gets overlooked on his contributions, but he is an important member of the Trio. I hope JKR provides more instances where the strengths of HRH are used for the common goal. Only my two Knuts though... laly (aka Laurie) PS hope this is okay for a first post! :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 23:20:45 2002 From: lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com (Ms Lizard Gizzard) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:20:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts Upkeep and Lack of Tuition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020311232045.94970.qmail@web13503.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36356 chyna rose wrote: > And from every referance of bording and > privite schools I've seen (and I am by no means an > experet) tuition plays a roll. Yet there > is no mention of it in any of the books. > And given the finacial attitudes of some of the > characters, we would've heard about it if > there was one. But has it ever been declared that there is no tuition? After all, (again) the story is told from Harry's POV, and his tuition could have been provided for in his parents' will. The Weasley's are the only ones who are stated to be dreadfully poor, but they are dedicated parents who surely would make the sacrifice to put their children in Hogwarts. Liz __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From AmistaPhillips at msn.com Mon Mar 11 22:43:20 2002 From: AmistaPhillips at msn.com (kvmcc08) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:43:20 -0000 Subject: bmw2 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36357 (SNIP) I hereby announce the opening of a new office at the Ministry of Magic: The Bureau for the Betterment of Missing Muggles, Witches, and Wizards (BMW*2) The Bureau's main responsibility is to flesh out the missing persons, objects, and plot devices of the Magical World. Keep an eye out, and let no one pass through our fingers. The BMW*2 is here to match up the loose ends. Happened to be Observed: Not Developed Adequately (HONDA): The official list of those MMWW who, while known to exist, have been overlooked until now. 1) Ali Bashir (last known to have imported illegally several flying carpets) 2) Florence (the mysterious girl mentioned by Bertha Jorkins in the Pensieve) 3) Doris Crockford (an over-excited witch last seen in the Leaky Cauldron) 4) Keeper of Keys (Title used by Hagrid, but never explained) MY RESPONSE: What about Deadalus Diggle? He is mentioned turning rain into shooting stars in the first book. Does he count for mentioned but not developed characters? Amista going back to lurkdom From kerelsen at quik.com Tue Mar 12 00:37:50 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 19:37:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts Upkeep and Lack of Tuition References: <20020311232045.94970.qmail@web13503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <006d01c1c95e$254b86a0$e189d5d1@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 36358 > But has it ever been declared that there is no > tuition? After all, (again) the story is told from > Harry's POV, and his tuition could have been provided > for in his parents' will. The Weasley's are the only > ones who are stated to be dreadfully poor, but they > are dedicated parents who surely would make the > sacrifice to put their children in Hogwarts. > > Liz I wonder if, because Arthur Weasley is an employee at the Ministry of Magic, he gets a break on his tuition, or if, perhaps, the Ministry has an educational fund thing where for each galleon Mr. Weasley contributes toward his children's education, they'll match it. I mean, you'd think that they'd want Hogwarts graduates for their future employees, and this would be a way to encourage multi-generations working there... My husband's employer has a thing where you contribute that way and it's slowly accumlating $$$ for my daughter's future college education. Also, perhaps there are scholarships available too... Bernadette From ruben at satec.es Mon Mar 11 23:29:12 2002 From: ruben at satec.es (elirtai) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:29:12 -0000 Subject: Student list question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36359 Hello again, This isn't strictly canon, although it may be related. Anyway I think I'm still in newbie moderated status, so I guess it will be rejected if it isn't fit for the list. So here it goes, and sorry if this is not the place for it. I assume most of you have seen JKR's drawings of HP characters (if you haven't, they're on http://www.fictionalley.org/harryandme/). They're rather good, by the way. I haven't found any references to them in the list archives or the FAQs, I hope I didn't miss anything. My question is about the 'school list' drawings and how they relate to the books. We get to see part of the student list. For every name we see the house they were to be sorted into, and two symbols. The first symbol is either a black square or a white circle. The second one is a letter N in a box, a plain Star of David, or a circle-enclosed Star of David. I haven't found any relationship between these symbols and the actual characters. Here's the list; does anyone know what these mean? Symbols: O =White circle X =Black square [N] =letter N in a box D =Star of David (D) =Same, enclosed in a circle H,G,R,S = Hufflepuff, Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Slytherin (Gryffindor usually appears enclosed in a circle) The question marks mean the original is unreadable. Name Symbol Symbol House Abbott, Hannah O [N] H Bones, Susan O D H Boot, Trevor (*) X [N] R Brocklehurst, Mandy O D R Brown, Lavender O (D) (G) Bulstrode, Millicent O D S Corner?, Michael X D H Cornfoot?, Stephen X (D) R Crabbe, Vincent X (D) S Davis, Tracey O D S Entwhistle, Kevin X [N] R Finch-Fletchley, Justin X [N] H Finnigan, Seamus X (D) (G) Goldstein, Anthony X D H Goyle, Gregory X (D) S Granger, Hermione O [N] (G) Graingrass?, Amelie? O (D) S Hopkins, Wayne X D H Jones, Megan O D H Li, Su O D R Longbottom, Neville ???????????? (**) McDougal, Isabel (***) O (D) R * In the books he became Terry Boot. ** Neville's entry is not only hard to read, it has no symbols or house at all (a last minute character maybe). *** In the books she became Morag McDougal Any ideas? Cheers Elirtai From mlacats at aol.com Tue Mar 12 00:34:43 2002 From: mlacats at aol.com (mlacats at aol.com) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 19:34:43 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Presents, money, and whether Harry is totally self-centered Message-ID: <47.19897d5b.29bea723@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36360 In a message dated 03/06/2002 9:10:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, adatole at yahoo.com writes: > > Canon states that Ron and Hermione's birthdays fall during the year, > and even though R&H have owled (can an animal be a verb?) Harry > presents during the summer, again we have no indication that he > remembered their birhtdays in any way. > > Now perhaps this is due to the books being from Harry's perspective. > Perhaps what he got them was "off-camera" and not worth writing > about. > > I would hate to think that our hero Harry: good-hearted, loving and > kind would be thoughtless enough to forget these things. But I would > love to hear other people's opinions on the subject. > Hi Leon, JKR has stated that Harry DOES give presents back, but she doesn't include it in the books because there's not enough room....she said that the books would be the size of dictionaries or encyclopedias if she put that in....so you can relax, Harry IS kind and considerate........ harriet [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From frodoyoda at aol.com Tue Mar 12 00:52:02 2002 From: frodoyoda at aol.com (frodoyoda_2000) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 00:52:02 -0000 Subject: What's in a name? - Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36361 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ohtoresonate" wrote: > Though most people in this fandom and in HP fan fiction (like Malfoy > in canon) conclude that the Weasleys' last name somehow connect them > to weasels, I find little to no evidence to support this assumption. > Of course, I would be happy to entertain this theory if people can > cite canon text as support. :) > > In fact, if you look at the structure of English names, you will find > that names ending in -ley or -ly usually indicate an association with > fields. For example, "Stan-ley" means stony field and "Wes-ley" means > field of the west. So going by this pattern, Weas-ley should mean > fields of weas? > > Hmm seeing how Quidditch evolved (IMO, rather arbitrarily) from Queer > Ditch and Snitch from Snidge (and incidentally, "blimey" from "blind > me"), I can't even begin to hazard a guess as to what the original > word for "weas" could possibly be. > > Anyone? > > :) OTR How about weeds? As in, they were too poor to work their fields, and so had fields of weeds? Or wea'sel snouts, which are a kind of nettle, but that's really a stretch. OK, thought I'd throw those out there. Molly From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue Mar 12 01:17:30 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:17:30 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Florence In-Reply-To: <86.17b4e0ac.29be81f1@aol.com> References: <86.17b4e0ac.29be81f1@aol.com> Message-ID: <329502069.20020311171730@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36362 Monday, March 11, 2002, 1:56:01 PM, Edblanning at aol.com wrote: Eac> Bertha was a contemporary of Sirius and Eac> therefore of James Potter Oh yeah, Sirius says so, doesn't he? Sorry... -- Dave From rshuson80 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 12 01:06:50 2002 From: rshuson80 at yahoo.com (nyarth_meow) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 01:06:50 -0000 Subject: Student list question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36363 Elirtai asked > My question is about the 'school list' drawings and how they > relate to the books. We get to see part of the student list. > For every name we see the house they were to be sorted into, > and two symbols. The first symbol is either a black square or > a white circle. The second one is a letter N in a box, a plain > Star of David, or a circle-enclosed Star of David. > JKR in a BBC documentary "Harry Potter and me" showed this list to the camera briefly. She said it showed every student in Harry's year, what house they were in, and whether they were muggle-born, wizard-born or half-blood. She said it was important for allegiences in the later books. I can't figure out how the symbols refer to parentage, though. Oh, wait... the O's and X's I think are gender... all the girls have an O, all the boys an X. So i suppose the N, D, (D) refers to their breeding, but I can't see how. We know Justin and Hermione are muggle-born, they both have an [N]. The star of David and the circled star of David must be hal- blood and full-blood, but I don't know which is which. Interestingly, whichever symbol means half-blood, there's half-bloods in Slytherin (look at Bulstrode and Goyle - different symbols). I've always wondered whether or not muggle-borns get sorted into Slyth - some people assume they aren't. But the traits of ambition and cunning are hardly exclusive to the wizard born. > The question marks mean the original is unreadable. > > Name Symbol Symbol House > > Abbott, Hannah O [N] H > Bones, Susan O D H > Boot, Trevor (*) X [N] R > Brocklehurst, Mandy O D R > Brown, Lavender O (D) (G) > Bulstrode, Millicent O D S > Corner?, Michael X D H > Cornfoot?, Stephen X (D) R > Crabbe, Vincent X (D) S > Davis, Tracey O D S > Entwhistle, Kevin X [N] R > Finch-Fletchley, Justin X [N] H > Finnigan, Seamus X (D) (G) > Goldstein, Anthony X D H > Goyle, Gregory X (D) S > Granger, Hermione O [N] (G) > Graingrass?, Amelie? O (D) S > Hopkins, Wayne X D H > Jones, Megan O D H > Li, Su O D R > Longbottom, Neville ???????????? (**) > McDougal, Isabel (***) O (D) R > -Nyarth From diana at slashcity.com Tue Mar 12 01:04:32 2002 From: diana at slashcity.com (Diana Williams) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:04:32 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Student list question References: Message-ID: <12b801c1c961$deea43f0$0a02a8c0@DianaPC> No: HPFGUIDX 36364 From: "elirtai" > > Symbols: > O =White circle > X =Black square > > Abbott, Hannah O [N] H > Bones, Susan O D H > Boot, Trevor (*) X [N] R > Brocklehurst, Mandy O D R > Brown, Lavender O (D) (G) Well, as far as the X and O column goes, I'd guess that it means Male and Female, and that seems to hold up if you check the names and their sexes. Diana W. From huntleyl at mssm.org Tue Mar 12 01:57:30 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:57:30 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Student list question References: Message-ID: <003801c1c969$44cb2e80$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 36365 DATA KINDLY COMPILED BY ELIRTAI: ------------------------------------------------------ Symbols: O =White circle X =Black square [N] =letter N in a box D =Star of David (D) =Same, enclosed in a circle H,G,R,S = Hufflepuff, Gryffindor, Ravenclaw, Slytherin (Gryffindor usually appears enclosed in a circle) The question marks mean the original is unreadable. Name Symbol Symbol House Abbott, Hannah O [N] H Bones, Susan O D H Boot, Trevor (*) X [N] R Brocklehurst, Mandy O D R Brown, Lavender O (D) (G) Bulstrode, Millicent O D S Corner?, Michael X D H Cornfoot?, Stephen X (D) R Crabbe, Vincent X (D) S Davis, Tracey O D S Entwhistle, Kevin X [N] R Finch-Fletchley, Justin X [N] H Finnigan, Seamus X (D) (G) Goldstein, Anthony X D H Goyle, Gregory X (D) S Granger, Hermione O [N] (G) Graingrass?, Amelie? O (D) S Hopkins, Wayne X D H Jones, Megan O D H Li, Su O D R Longbottom, Neville ???????????? (**) McDougal, Isabel (***) O (D) R * In the books he became Terry Boot. ** Neville's entry is not only hard to read, it has no symbols or house at all (a last minute character maybe). *** In the books she became Morag McDougal ------------------------------------------------------ In addition to the speculation on what the symbols mean -- Seamus is a Half-Blood Right? So the circled star seems to mean that. However, that would make Crabbe and Goyle Half-Bloods too. It seems unlikely that the Crabbe and Goyle senior would have married/procreated/whatever with muggles. Probably JKR decided to make Seamus a Halfsie as a spur-of-the-moment thing...Then the circled star would mean pure-blood. ???!!! Do you people know what this *means* ??!! *pauses to calm herself* We know have semi-canonical proof of certain characters status as far as their heritage...erm, well..unless JKR changed it as with (?) Seamus. *sighs* Eemp. Well, it was a promising idea. Nevermind.. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From margdean at erols.com Tue Mar 12 02:39:32 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:39:32 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts Upkeep and Lack of Tuition References: Message-ID: <3C8D6A64.812BB003@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36366 abigail_draconi wrote: > > Where does Hogwarts get its > funds to continue running at all, let alone at the level of decadence > that it apparently does? I happen to go to a City University of New > York and I *still* have to pay a tuition although I live a bout a mile > from it. And from every referance of bording and privite schools I've > seen (and I am by no means an experet) tuition plays a roll. Yet there > is no mention of it in any of the books. And given the finacial > attitudes of some of the characters, we would've heard about it if > there was one. It is possible for a boarding school not to have to charge tuition if the initial (or, I suppose, subsequent) endowments are big enough. Here in Port Deposit, Maryland, back in the 1890's sometime, a millionaire named Jacob Tome founded the Tome School with a 3 million dollar endowment -- a LOT of money, in the 1890's. They didn't have to start charging tuition until sometime in the 1960's. So if Hogwarts has enough rich contributors who are interested in having the youth of the wizarding world taught properly, it's possible that they don't need to charge fees (although students do have to chip in for books, supplies, etc., as we know). --Margaret Dean From tabouli at unite.com.au Tue Mar 12 02:21:57 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:21:57 +1100 Subject: Ron's hip secondhand clothes, Elkins' anti-LOLLIPOPS propoganda in FLIRTIAC Message-ID: <008d01c1c96c$e0536fe0$3332c2cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 36367 Uncmark: > Noone enjoys buying secondhand. It's a necessity! Ah, but no, Unc... surely you've encountered the hip, alternative "shop at thrift shop" mentality? Certainly in Australia there's been a backlash against the uncool new clothing industry among groovy young things who could easily afford to buy new clothes, but style themselves as left wing rebels who *choose* to shop in the Salvation Army and op shops for authentic 1970s nylon shirts and dresses, and 30 year old corduroy or sheepskin jackets and so on. Among certain circles wearing new clothing is tantamount to bulldozing a cathedral to build a shopping mall. I did an Arts degree... I was *surrounded* by such people! I'd walk in to parties full of 1970s geometric printed nylon with press-studs and musty leather jackets, and feel like a braindead yuppy consumer because I was wearing (gasp!) *new* clothes, bought in an actual *new clothes shop*! Lining the pockets of evil corporations, no less! I once tried, for a bit, to do the op shop thing, but I just can't do it. I have a friend of this type who is, unusually for this type, actually too poor to buy new clothes, but she always manages to look great through judicious secondhand shopping (unlike a lot of them, IMO); I just don't seem to have the eye. See, what Ron needs is a taste of "alternative" Muggle Arts student attitude. If only he mingled a bit with the right set in Edinburgh (assuming Hogwarts is there-ish) he'd realise that he is in fact *superior* to the shallow lowbrows manipulated by amoral profit-driven advertisers into wearing (sniff) *new* clothes, and would reattach the lace onto his dress robes and wear them with ironic pride. "This is an authentic 1890s piece I picked up for ten sickles at the Brotherhood of St Lawrence", he could declare, sniffing disdainfully at Malfoy's oh-so-prententiously-Sloaney Yves Saint Merlin black velvet... (Sadly, of course, it seldom works like that. People who are poor enough, or have large enough families to *have* to wear secondhand clothes are apt to be those who simply *hate* it, and get new stuff the second they can afford it.) Having kindly provided Ron with a way of Taking Pride In His Clothing, Captain Tabouli sits back in her deck chair, inhaling the fresh ocean breeze. She is just about to call in the LOLLIPOPS band for a round of sea shanties when her handsome young cabin boy comes rushing over, gesticulating so wildly he forgets to salute. "Captain! Captain!" he cries, flapping his hands in a way that reminds her of an owl she once knew (Pigeon, wasn't it?), and gesturing frantically to port. "The FLIRTIAC dinghy is under threat! It's *Elkins*! She's threatening to cut the dinghy's ties with the mother ship, something about a triangle..." Captain Tabouli's nostrils flare. She rises ominously to her feet, and marches to the port side of the ship, where FLIRTIAC has been moored since LOLLIPOPS embarked. The newly renovated dinghy looks rather bigger than she remembered. In the past, FLIRTIAC was moored close to the mother SHIP, huddling in shadow at her side, but she now seems to have drifted away slightly, out into the sun. If she shades her eyes against the light, Captain Tabouli can admire the dinghy's figurehead, a stylised young woman with the head of a dust-coloured cat. Today, however, she is appalled to observe something new about the figurehead, something... unauthorised. Captain Tabouli reaches into her pocket and whips out her telescope for a closer look, and her jaw drops at Elkins' audacity. Graffiti! A slogan, spraypainted shamelessly on the figurehead, as if it were a subway wall! It says "Snape 4 Mrs Norris 4 eva"! On the side facing LOLLIPOPS, no less! The cheek of it! Shaking with rage, Captain Tabouli bellows to her crew to winch in the dinghy, descends down the purpose-built ladder into FLIRTIAC's bow, and starts searching. Seconds later she notices something breathing under a pile of oars, and drags out a grinning Elkins by the scruff of the neck, a spraycan falling from her pocket with a clatter. Elkins, despite a persistently disrespectful attitude towards the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS (the seashell incident is an indelible blot on her file), has long been a sponsor of the Daring Dinghy FLIRTIAC. As Captain Tabouli tends to have her hands full with the main Ship, she has, in the past, been generous enough to overlook this and allow Elkins on board the dinghy for general maintenance and the occasional spin around Theory Bay. This, however, is not to be bourne. "What," says Captain Tabouli in a soft and menacing voice, "is the meaning of this? I take time out from LOLLIPOPS to renovate FLIRTIAC, adding a stylish Kittygro design and five new canons, deftly explaining why Snape and Filch are buddies within the framework of Filch's Lover Is Regretting Transformation Into A Cat... and *what thanks do I get*?" Elkins smiles winningly at the bristling Captain, protesting that she *likes* the Kitty-gro twist, finds it an admirable addition to the FLIRTIAC artillery. "You've sold me on it!" she cries, with an innocent look. "But only if I can turn it into a love triangle. But surely that's perfectly okay with you. Right?" "A love triangle," hisses Captain Tabouli, her eyes boring into Elkins', "between Filch, Mrs Norris and SNAPE?? Do you remember who *built* that dinghy, Elkins? It was ME! The founder and Captain of the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS! And do you remember what the central premise of LOLLIPOPS is? The mast from which all her sails fly? The keel on which her entire framework is *BUILT*?" Elkins pauses to consider, then raises one eyebrow, goading the Captain into shrieks. "SNAPE LOVED **LILY**!" shrieks Captain Tabouli, spraying Elkins with spit in her rage. Not daring to wipe the captainly saliva from her face, Elkins tries vainly to plead her case, reminding the Captain that in her very own Kittygro theory, she postulated that Snape was devoting hours of research to curing Mrs Norris. "Ah...but why?" pleads Elkins. "*Why* does Snape devote all of those hours of research to curing some Squib's muggle-born girlfriend? Just because she was once, like Snape, an ally of Dumbledore? Just because of his regard for Filch? Just because he feels a little guilty about helping to invent the Kitty-Gro? Just because he's a Great Big Softie when it comes to doomed romance? Naaaaah. No, it's *obviously* because he was in love with her himself! And furthermore, he still is." The Captain dumps Elkins on a stack of lifejackets in digust. "I," snaps Captain Tabouli witheringly, "have *five* canons in favour of my version of FLIRTIAC, and a veritable *army* of canons aboard LOLLIPOPS. So what have *you* got, eh? What straw-sized canon have *you* scrounged out of the barrel to defend this blasphemous theory of yours?" "The smirk!" declares Elkins brightly. "That little smirk on Snape's face when Filch is overcome with grief over Mrs. Norris' petrifaction in CoS. One thing that Kitty-Gro utterly fails to explain to my satisfaction is why on earth Snape would be suppressing a *smile* there." "But if Filch is his romantic *rival,* you see," Elkins goes on, "then it makes a bit more sense. Snape knows perfectly well that Mrs. Norris has merely been petrified, not killed, and that her condition is both painless and reversible. That Filch does not himself realize this is indeed rather pathetic. Snape bothers to suppress the smile because he really does have some affection for Filch. But what he's really thinking there is: A man like this could surely never hold her. She will be *mine!*" "*Pah*," replies the Captain rudely. "There's a far more obvious reason for that smirk. Think about it. Both men suffered cruelly in the war against Voldemort. Both intervened to rescue their beloved from the Dark Lord's clutches, both dabbled in the seedy, sinister world of espionage and sought refuge with Dumbledore. Snape turned spy to save Lily's hated husband and child in a supreme act of self-sacrifice; Filch gave Mrs Norris (the spy that loved him) affection and support and doubtless collaborated in her daring secret mission to inform Dumbledore about Evil Mr Norris' movements. But then what happened, eh?" "Tragedy struck for both our heros," sighs the Captain, removing her hat and placing it over her heart. "Filch, of course, lost Mrs Norris to the Kittygro Cocktail, brewed by Snape's own hand, and carried her feline remains tearfully to the protection of Dumbledore, who commanded Snape to find a cure, to right his terrible wrong in brewing so evil an elixir. Tragic, of course, but not, to Snape's mind, anything like the torment he himself has suffered. Snape's sacrifice was far greater - not only did he endure the pain of protecting his hated rival James and son, he suffered the agony of failure and bereavement, for not only did Voldemort get to the Potters despite his best efforts, he also *killed* Lily, because she was strong and moral enough to give her life for her son... who had the cheek to *survive* and then Attend Snape's Potions Classes! Snape's lover is not a potentially retrievable cat, but dead dead dead!" "Hence the smirk, you see. Sure, he and Filch have a mutual empathy there, built on the shared pain of lost love, espionage and hiding behind Dumbledore's robes. Snape is Filch's only confidant and help in the deepest sorrow of his life. All the same, unbeknownst to Filch, the fact that Mrs Norris is still alive fuels Snape with a terrible resentment. Even as he comforts Filch, and feels an affectionate kinship for him, Snape curdles inside to think that the old fool thinks that *he* has suffered. Moreover, Snape, with his far heavier burden, swirls stylish black *rings* around Filch in the coping stakes. None of this shrieky hysteria for Snape: *he* has emotional control (most of the time). *He* has not only survived his pain, he has taken up a senior teaching position at a prestigious school and maintained a modicum of panache and dress sense. Hence, when he sees Filch coming undone over Mrs Norris' petrified body, he can barely suppress a smirk. Snape's secret resentment feels vindicated, his comparative emotional control in the face of greater grief amply demonstrated. Maybe he should work a bit harder on that Decatifying Potion after all. Perhaps in a couple of years he might suddenly have a breakthrough..." Me: > We only know how (Filch is) described *now*, after years > and years of anguish over his feline beloved have turned him cruel > and hysterical. . . .Perhaps as a younger man he was dashing and > devoted! Elkins: > Erm. Well, really, if we go by the Kitty-Gro FLIRTIAC timeline, then it can't have been more than fifteen years, can it? I don't really know if I believe that to be quite enough time to turn someone young and dashing into...well, Filch.< Ah, but I didn't say "young", I said "younger". Let's say he was a well-preserved fifty, a handsome, middle-aged gentleman with a swirl of distinguished grey in his still-flourishing hair, unbowed by half a century of Squib Marginalisation. The mature, sympathetic ear the abused, paranoid Mrs Norris (spying and living in the enemy's bed is enough to make anyone paranoid) had craved for oh so long. Here, at last, was a man she need not fear because he had No Magical Powers! Here, at last, was a man she could *guarantee* wasn't going to put Eavesdropper Charms on her cushions, or suddenly Apparate into her laundry with an army of Death Eaters. Of course, he couldn't protect her, either, but she was a Modern Career Woman, and didn't want any of that macho tripe. No, what the sad, childless Mrs Norris secretly craved (in some shameful corner of her heart) was a SON. Someone hurt, and vulnerable, to whom she was omnipotent and strong, someone who needed her, someone who would give her the unconditional, trusting love of a boy for his mother, someone whose innocent tribulations touched her heart. (What better than a Squib, rendered eternally childlike by the absence of magical powers?) This tendency was instilled in Mrs Norris at birth in accordance with the Potterverse law of Name Determinism by her Muggle parents, who named her after that paragon of caring for others... Florence Nightingale. How Filch adored Mrs Norris. She was his rock, a replacement for the mother who scorned him for being a Squib. He blossomed in her arms, filled at last with magic, the magic of Love. When the Kittygro potion stole her from him, it was as if the very foundations of his life had been taken away. He was a broken man, nay, a *destroyed* man. He turned to drink, letting his once distinguished crowning glory grow long and ragged, letting his cheek grow stubbled, his teeth turn the rotted yellow of a wizard consumed with grief. He begged Snape to brew some more Kittygro Cocktail, so that he could join his beloved, and when Snape refused (for your own good, Argus), he tried for several months to immerse himself in her plight by living off dead mice and cat food, clawing the furniture, and sleeping in a basket by the fire. Eventually, a concerned Snape summoned Dumbledore, who gently removed the catnip mouse from Filch's lips and gave him a proposal. Our old caretaker's just retired, twinkled Dumbledore, and I've been thinking we should hire a couple to replace him, a dynamic duo experienced in espionage who can roam the corridors and collaborate in the undoing of rule-breakers and wayward students. So what do you say, Argus and Mrs Norris? And so began Argus' career as Hogwarts caretaker, in which he and Mrs Norris could once more be as one, fighting the forces of evil together. In time, the reek of mice on Filch's breath faded away and his hollow, stubbled face began to fill out a little, but faced every day with the painful sight of his feline beloved, he never fully recovered, and grew ever more haggard and twisted with bitterness. By the time Harry arrives 15 or so years later, Mrs Norris is thin and grey, and the formerly handsome Filch is the ugly, creepy old man we know him as today. Fifteen years of self-neglect and not *caring* whether you live or die can be very hard on a man that age, you know. Elkins: > I mean, we all know that the new female DADA professor is *always* the one who finally manages to break through poor dear Sevvie's nasty old shell and win his warm and squishy heart, right? < Hmmmm. Of course, if Snape suddenly has a research breakthrough and restores Mrs Norris to be the DADA teacher, we might be able to forge a compromise here. After Lily's death, Snape had vowed never to set foot in the treacherous world of Romance again. He vowed to live the rest of his days in brooding solitude, with his potions and swirling black capes, in a dungeon called Heartbreak Hotel. However... ...after all those years of listening to Filch's resented ravings about Mrs Norris, Snape feels something stirring within him as he gazes upon the golden-eyed face of the woman he has saved from a furry fate. Moreover, Mrs Norris herself is rather dismayed at Filch's change from distinguished and dapper to shrieking male crone. Fifteen years as a cat have taken the edge off her maternal instincts and love of the powerless. Now that she has beed rescued by a powerful wizard, she is beginning to see that a liaison with a talented Potions Master has many attractions that a romance of compassion with a Squib does not. One night while Filch is shrieking after Peeves, she slips into Snape's dungeon with a token question about Dark Potions, and they get to talking, about the Kittygro Potion, about Snape's inside knowledge on Mr Norris from his days as a spy, about what Filch has become. Lily and Filch drift far away from their minds, as the candles burn lower and lower... Tabouli. Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at aol.com Tue Mar 12 03:48:22 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 03:48:22 -0000 Subject: What's in a name? - Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36368 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ohtoresonate" wrote: > > > Though most people in this fandom and in HP fan fiction (like Malfoy > in canon) conclude that the Weasleys' last name somehow connect them > to weasels, I find little to no evidence to support this assumption. > > > In fact, if you look at the structure of English names, you will find > that names ending in -ley or -ly usually indicate an association with > fields. For example, "Stan-ley" means stony field and "Wes-ley" means > field of the west. So going by this pattern, Weas-ley should mean > fields of weas? > > Hmm seeing how Quidditch evolved (IMO, rather arbitrarily) from Queer > Ditch and Snitch from Snidge (and incidentally, "blimey" from "blind > me"), I can't even begin to hazard a guess as to what the original > word for "weas" could possibly be. > > Anyone? > > :) OTR Well, actually, I think you've got the best answer already -- Weasley may simply be a variation of Wesley, i.e., west field. Why do I think this? There is a Charlie Wesley (whom I have never met) on a group circulation list at my office, and every time I see it I misread it as Charlie Weasley. Besides, Ottery St. Catchpole is in the west of England (west of Surrey, anyway). I also like the connotation that the name is an old English commoner family name, as the Weasleys are an old, but not aristocratic wizarding family. There certainly doesn't appear to be anything "weaselly" about them. Quite the contrary. I think the Weasleys are among the most straightforward characters in HP, and quite comfortable in their own commoner shoes. (Now, is there an English town called "Weasley"?) Debbie, waiting for someone to prove her wrong by posting the sinister Weasley backstory (no, I don't think Molly's sandwich crimes will do) From saintbacchus at yahoo.com Tue Mar 12 04:07:19 2002 From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 04:07:19 -0000 Subject: Magical motives (Dursleys) & character list symbols Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36369 Sirius Kase: << How about his wife and her family? I tend to go a little easier on Vernon than most around here. I think he is extremely protective of his family especially from what he sees as a powerful evil force that he doesn't understand. >> I agree. If he'd actually met a magical person, I think Vernon would know more about the magical world (for instance, that cloaks aren't just "some stupid new fashion" as he thinks in the beginning of PS). He seems to know pretty much nothing about it, and as we all know, ignorance breeds fear. Vernon may not believe in imagination, but that doesn't mean it doesn't run wild without him even realizing it. If Vernon has one good point, it's got to be his protectiveness. It's not played up in the books, but I found it rather touching. And if it extended beyond his immediate family, it would be even more so. =P <> I think he has met Lily and James - PS says that "they" haven't seen L&J for some years, implying that at one point or other, V&P have met with J&L. Presumably someone as straightlaced as Vernon would want to meet his future wife's family, anyway. However, whatever he thought of them would almost certainly have been colored by whatever Petunia had already told him. He probably met Lily with a specific picture in mind; If Lily had a hair out of place, that would be confirmation of his mental picture. If she didn't, well, she must be hiding something. Nyarth: << So i suppose the N, D, (D) refers to their breeding, but I can't see how. We know Justin and Hermione are muggle-born, they both have an [N]. The star of David and the circled star of David must be hal-blood and full-blood, but I don't know which is which. Interestingly, whichever symbol means half-blood, there's half-bloods in Slytherin (look at Bulstrode and Goyle - different symbols). I've always wondered whether or not muggle-borns get sorted into Slyth - some people assume they aren't. But the traits of ambition and cunning are hardly exclusive to the wizard born. >> True, but canon says specifically that Slytherin hated muggle-borns (that's why he left Hogwarts). I suspect that the Sorting Hat knows this and keeps anyone with less than a "proper" amount of wizard blood out of Slytherin. Harry is kind of a peculiar case, though, so I could be wrong. Meanwhile, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the uncircled Star is half-blood. That's probably enough for Slytherin (or if not, it might have needed adjusting as more and more halfblood students started showing up). Millicent Bulstrode the cat lover thus shares her breeding with a number of Hufflepuffs, whereas Crabbe and Goyle the Death Eaters' sons are more "pure." I suggest that the N stands for "Non-magical" or maybe just "No." BTW, Li Su = Cho Chang? If not, then what's with all the Asian students in Ravenclaw? (I'm only partly facetious here.) --Anna From mdemeran at hotmail.com Tue Mar 12 04:18:43 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (Meg Demeranville) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:18:43 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: bmw2 References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36370 Amista said: (SNIP) HONDA theory What about Deadalus Diggle? He is mentioned turning rain into shooting stars in the first book. Does he count for mentioned but not developed characters? (SNIP) We also know he lives in Kent (shooting stars over Kent after fall of Voldermort). In the Leaky Cauldron we learn that he was the one to bow to Harry as a child and "just happens" to be in the Leaky Cauldron when Harry goes there the first time. SS/PS. Personally, that set my "this person is more important than he seems" radar off when I reread the books. He seems to be a HONDA. And since names are so important to JKR, the name Dedalus is the father of the child who flew too high (Icarus) in Greek mythology. He was also a well known inventor for the Greek kings. (Hope I am not transposing characters in my lack of sleep) He just seems to have too much mention to be an absolutely flat character. Just my thoughts on the subject, Meg [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jklb66 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 12 04:21:17 2002 From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 04:21:17 -0000 Subject: Moody madness/What's in a name-Weasley In-Reply-To: <6.254f3ea9.29be2e94@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36371 Eloise wrote: > Regarding Crouch/Moody and the Imperius curse. He had one very good >reason to teach Harry. Whom did we all not trust? Who was it hinted >had put Harry's name in the Goblet? Who at Hogwarts was presumed to >have used the Imperius in the past? Karkaroff. [Snip] Crouch could >reasonably expect that he would do anything to make his own champion >win, including Imperio'ing Harry to throw the tournament. Harry, >from Crouch/Moody's POV needed to be able to resist if he was to be >sure of winning. Very Good, Eloise! This is the best theory I've read on why Crouch taught Harry to resist the Imperius Curse. I also liked the earlier post (sorry, I can't give credit where it is due; if I go back to find the post my computer will erase this!) that pointed out that while teaching Harry to resist the Imperius Curse, Crouch got his jollies out by letting Harry crash into desks and bruise himself. Why not enjoy yourself with a bit of torture while teaching the brat! _____________________________________________ One more thing about the name "Weasley" is it's similarity to "Dursley." Same last 4 letters. It helps set the two families up for comparison. One family epitomizes hatred of Harry, and one family epitomizes acceptance of him. "Life at the Burrow was as different as possible from life on Privet Drive....What Harry found most unusual about life at Ron's, however, wasn't the talking mirror or the clanking ghoul: It was the fact that everybody there seemed to like him." CoS, ch. 4, 1st paragraph -Jennifer "'Twitchy little ferret, aren't you Malfoy?' said Hermione scathingly." From boggles at earthlink.net Tue Mar 12 04:30:05 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:30:05 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's motivation, The Map Yet Again, The Weasleys' Good Name, Voldemort's Naming Conventions, and Tuition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36372 Oh, dear. I get swamped for a week, and you all have such interesting conversations without me! Fortunately, it's now Spring Break - the stack of papers to grade can wait . . . At 1:21 PM -0400 3/6/02, voicelady wrote: > >However, according to Voldemort and Lucius Malfoy, Harry Potter >*does* come from the wrong sort! Does he? I wonder. Draco explicitly asks him in PS/SS whether his parents were "our kind" - and seems satisfied by the response that they were both wizards. In fact, his response suggests that, while he doesn't like (or trust) Muggle-borns, his objection to them is that they haven't been brought up in wizarding ways. His bit about the "old families" seems tacked on. I suspect that there's no such thing as half-blood to Draco, just as there's no such thing as a mixed-race person to some Muggles. If you're born of wizards, you're a wizard. If you're born of a Muggle, even one, you're a Muggle, too. And Harry Potter, as a Potter, qualifies as a wizard, despite the fact that everyone knows his mother was Muggle-born. I suspect if Draco knew Voldemort's ancestry, he'd be quite shocked. I also suspect his attitude, being about how one was raised (and thus, where one's loyalties can be expected to lie) rather than blood purity per se, is closer to Salazar Slytherin's than Voldemort's is. >My question is: Why? The Malfoys alligned with Voldemort while he >was in power. Voldemort wanted to *kill* Harry. At the very least, >Draco's presumed friendship with Harry would enrage his father. So >why would Draco want Harry's friendship? What was his motivation? I think Lucius would be quite happy to know that Harry Potter was his son's friend, if only because it might give him a way to betray him. Ditto Voldemort. Aside from this, I think in the robe shop, Draco merely sees Harry as someone to talk to; he seems to be feeling him out a bit, to see where his place in the pecking order might be. On the train, Draco sees Harry as someone powerful. Being Ambitious - Slytherin, after all - he tries to ally himself with that power. When that doesn't work, he keeps measuring himself next to that power, trying to prove that he doesn't need it. Not to say he might not also have more personal motives . . . but this isn't a SHIP post. At 10:16 AM -0500 3/7/02, Edblanning at aol.com wrote: >(The biggest potential plot hole, is that in PS/SS, it should have shown Lord >Voldemort everywhere that Quirrel went.) While I wonder about this too, the suggestion that it wouldn't show him _as Voldemort_ is intriguing. Fred: "Quick, get back in the broom closet! Quirrell's coming down the charms corridor!" George: "Who's this Tom Riddle he's got with him? Is he that Hufflepuff fifth-year?" At 10:39 PM -0800 3/10/02, Susanne wrote: >Reading about all the possible meanings of characters names, >what about the Weasley family? > >Is that a "good" name to have in JKR's books? > >Where I grew up (Germany) it wasn't exactly a compliment to be >compared to a weasel. It's not exactly a compliment, no - but it makes sense given the fisticuffs they get into. Traditionally, weasels are the deadly enemy of snakes, here represented by House Slytherin in general and the Malfoys specifically. At 10:34 AM -0500 3/11/02, Edblanning at aol.com wrote: >Secondly, have you noticed that Voldemort calls Lucius Malfoy by his *first* >name? IIRC, he's the only person he does, bar Harry ( and calling Pettigrew >by his nickname, which is somewhat derisory, anyway). Rather creepily >familiar, don't you think? I read it as paternalistic. The other Death Eaters are treated as employees, or worse, servants. Lucius is treated as the son-surrogate, the heir apparent to Voldemort's role. He is the one to whom much is given, and for whom much is forgiven - but from whom much will be expected. What were we saying about Draco earlier? At 4:21 PM +0000 3/11/02, abigail_draconi wrote: >Which brought up a question in my mind. Where does Hogwarts get its >funds to continue running at all, let alone at the level of decadence >that it apparently does? It seems ambiguous in the books; there are a couple of things Harry says about the pile of Galleons in Gringott's that suggest he's paying tuition, although it's also possible to read them as being about the cost of books and supplies. It doesn't seem too strange to me to think that the Four Founders might well have left Hogwarts enough of an endowment that it can remain self-sufficient. The House Elves do all the cafeteria, maintenance, and custodial work without pay; a fair ammount of the food seems to be grown on the grounds; Hagrid tends grounds wfor what seems to be pretty much just room, board, and mead money; and the students provide their own supplies, so the expenses shouldn't be too great - the largest part would be teachers' salaries, and none of them look too rich. -- - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon boggles at earthlink.net === Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 === GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+ c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+ ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U! From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Mar 12 04:52:33 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 04:52:33 -0000 Subject: Ron's hip secondhand clothes, Elkins' anti-LOLLIPOPS propoganda in FLIRTIAC In-Reply-To: <008d01c1c96c$e0536fe0$3332c2cb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36373 All right, Cap'n. I may be, as Elkins so kindly pointed out a SYNCOPHANT, but there are dire doings aboard LOLLIPOPS tonight (or whatever time it is in Australia.) --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" wrote: > ...after all those years of listening to Filch's resented ravings about Mrs Norris, Snape feels something stirring within him as he >gazes upon the golden-eyed face of the woman he has saved from a furry fate> > UGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I bought into the flamingo in the Gothic Cathedral idea, but two flamingos? Are we redecorating the ship in flamingos? Should we bring in Captain Charis to do some colour co-ordination? If you and Elkins want to do it, I'll leave it to you. But I'm begging leave to pack up and visit Cindy on her "Big Bang Destroyer" for a bit. I'm taking George, the fair-faced cabin boy, with me. (golden-eyed face indeed?) "Come on, George! We're going to bring you over to Cindy, and see if we can reconcile you with a few Big Bangs!" Eileen PS. Don't worry. We'll be back. LOLLIPOPS is irresistable. Resistance is futile....... PPS. Cap'n Charis, I don't think I've mentioned how much I loved ELGINMARBLES. Brilliant. From jklb66 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 12 04:55:21 2002 From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 04:55:21 -0000 Subject: Some Sirius Black Questions. In-Reply-To: <7814314672.20020311142138@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36374 Serenadust wrote: >I also don't understand the idea that Sirius is supposed to be a >terrible person because Ron's leg was broken in the process of being >dragged down to the Shrieking Shack. He was dragging him down there >in desperate anticipation of Harry following them. The only reason >Ron's leg broke is that he had hooked it around a root to resist >being dragged away, not because Black was really trying to hurt him. Susanne wrote: > And why, exactly did Black want Harry to follow, anyhow? > As a witness? To explain his innocence to Harry? >I guess nobody besides Lupin would have believed him, if >they hadn't seen Scabbers transform into Pettigrew. > Maybe he should have planned on more witnesses? > Would he have been able to persuade Dumbledore to listen and > watch, if he had tried? My impression of the scene was that Sirius dragged Ron to the Shreiking Shack only because Ron had Scabbers/Peter in his pocket. He was "grateful" to Harry (and Hermione) for following Ron, not because he wanted them there, but because he didn't want them back at the castle getting help. He wanted to kill Peter, pure and simple. Killing Peter would avenge James and Lily, avenge his own false imprisonment, and protect Harry. Getting Harry to believe him and getting his own name cleared were all secondary in importance. We can see this in the Shreiking Shack scene-- it is Lupin who has to keep restraining Sirius from killing Peter "until we get a few things straighted out." Lupin convinces Sirius that Harry and Ron deserve to know the truth BEFORE the rat gets torn to pieces; Sirius would be just as happy to kill the rat first and explain later. So, no, he didn't want more witnesses; witnesses might interfere with the murder he had waited 12 years to commit. Unfortunately, he ended up without witnesses or a dead rat. :( Further canon evidence that clearing his own name was secondary in importance: Sirius's knowledge of his own innocence kept him sane in Azkaban for 12 years, but he was unable to escape. I don't have my copy of PoA, but there is a quote, something like, "Knowing that I was innocent, I stayed sane and kept my powers, but without a wand, I had no hope of fighting off the demenotrs." It is only when he learns that Peter is at Hogwarts, and thus a significant danger to Harry, that he gains the inner fire he needs to escape. Again, I'm quoting inaccurately from memory-- "But knowing that he was at Hogwarts, perfectly poised to strike if any hint should reach him that Voldemort was rising again, it lit a fire in my mind and gave me the strength I needed to escape." He wanted to escape in order to kill Peter and thereby protect Harry; the desire to clear his own name wasn't part of the equation. -Jennifer "'Well, hello, Peter,' said Lupin pleasantly, as though rats frequently erupted into old school friends around him. 'Long time no see.'" From chynarose8 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 12 03:53:44 2002 From: chynarose8 at hotmail.com (abigail_draconi) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 03:53:44 -0000 Subject: Student list question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36375 Elirtai had asked about the meaning of symbols on a student list created by JKR. I belive that each of the symbols pertain to the most basic of student stats. The first column refers to the sex of the student, with the second refering to parantage. Males get a black box in the first column, and females a white circle. The boxed N denotes a Muggle born, the uncircled Star of David a half-blood, and the circled Star of David a pureblood. It's really not that hard to figure out the second column, at least IMHO, if you search the list for students of known parantage -in my case Hermione and Seamus. @---<-- Chyna Rose From elfundeb at aol.com Tue Mar 12 05:56:27 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 05:56:27 -0000 Subject: Some Sirius Black Questions. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36376 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nyarth_meow" wrote: > > Apologies if this has been covered before, but I was wondering if I'm > > the only person who thinks Black isn't quite all that he appears? > > OK, all I have is gut-feeling and no real evidence, but I'm > > interested to know if anyone else has the same? > Dicentra took a deep breath and responded: > > Ok, first of all, these and other Sirius issues were hammered out > about a month ago: go back and see what you can find during February. > > But because there are only 38,000 posts for the average newbie to sort > through and because the Sirius FAQ isn't up yet, I'll give you a brief > summary on what you've asked. > > > > As for his emotional stability, most folks agree that he's a volatile > person to begin with, or at the least he's suffering from > post-traumatic stress syndrome. Notice, however, that in GoF he's a > perfectly sane, logical person. > My two Knuts: I think it is the sane logical Sirius that appears in GoF, more than any other, that has raised questions in many minds, at least mine, about Sirius. The Sirius of the Prank, and the Sirius of PoA (till about halfway through the Shrieking Shack), is indeed a very volatile person, a person of unthinking action rather than calm reflection. He then pulls off a sudden transformation, which led some folks to question whether he has sociopath/psychopath tendencies, able to pull out the charm when necessary. In GoF he seems so calm, so thoughtful, so methodical, in fact the antithesis of the spontaneous, uncontrolled person he was portrayed as in most of PoA. Surely someone who was as wild as Sirius appeared to be at Hogwarts, who rode around on a (possibly Muggle) motorcycle, and who spent 12 years -- virtually his entire adulthood -- at Azkaban could not have had the life experiences to display the maturity he shows in GoF. As a result, I think the question whether Sirius really is what he seems is very legitimate; I've harbored my own suspicions about him. in fact, on first reading, I had concluded that Harry's desire to live with someone so seemingly unstable as Sirius reflected nothing more than a desperate desire to leave the Dursleys and spend time with someone who knew his parents. On further reflection, and after reading all of the February posts (in arrears), I have backed off the sociopath assessment (though I have not entirely ruled it out). Instead, I wonder if this is not simply a case of making Sirius serve too many conflicting purposes in the plot. The Sirius of PoA had to appear dangerous to be a believable murderer, so his personality is presented as highly volatile -- and it can't be fully explained by post-traumatic stress, because some of the episodes that are revealed that support his lack of reflectiveness, such as the Prank, occurred before his imprisonment (unless, of course, someone invents a traumatic home- life backstory for him). But the Sirius of GoF is Harry's mentor figure, so he has to be thoughtful and rational, not to mention sacrificial in staying in such a dangerous location in order to protect Harry. This is so different from his portrayal in PoA that I just don't find him that believeable as a character. Or maybe it's just my P.A.C.M.A.N tendencies, thinking the Sirius of GoF is too good to be true. But then again, maybe it's just that his life-debt to Harry has had the untoward effect of suppressing his volatility. Debbie, still unable to decide about Sirius From meckelburg at foni.net Tue Mar 12 06:33:16 2002 From: meckelburg at foni.net (mecki987) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 06:33:16 -0000 Subject: Flying hedgehog Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36377 PLEASE! Sign me up for the membership! I'm sure we could find loads of hiding Death-Eaters, including Dadalus Diggle, who sent out the fireworks on the day LV left,just to tell him know *I'm here if you need me!* And besides, in fact I should lead the group. After all, I *am* the greatest see-it-all, know-it-all hedgehog in the world. You don't believe me? Those of you from Germany, just take a look at my name: MECKI (wishing she could cuddle into a nice warm nest and sleep until May) From catlady at wicca.net Tue Mar 12 08:04:38 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 08:04:38 -0000 Subject: Snape/Mrs Norris / What the Death Eaters Know / Knut=Canute Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36378 Elkins and Tabouli said so many funny things that it would take all night for me to say LOL to each of them. Elkins wrote: > Forced to choose once more between these two paragons of masculine > desirability [Filch and Snape], would Mrs. Norris make the same > decision the *second* time Why can't she have both? If everyone agrees that a woman can have two children and love both of them, why doesn't the same argument apply to two husbands? Tabouli wrote: > "SNAPE LOVED **LILY**! If Mrs. Norris can love two wizards, surely Snape can love two witches. Eloise wrote: > whilst Sirius hears the DEs in Azkaban complain about Karkaroff, > he apparently doesn't hear anything about Snape. They think he's > still loyal. They don't mention him as 'good old Snape', either, because Sirius in GoF doesn't know that Snape used to be a Death Eater. And they don't mention young Barty, because Sirius didn't know whether young Barty really was guilty or had just been railroaded by his father. However, they *did* bitterly mention Pettigrew (or Wormtail, Sirius would recognize either name) as the person who led their Lord Voldemort to his and their overthrow, unless Sirius was lying when he told Peter that in the Shrieking Shack. I've always wondered how the imprisoned Death Eaters knew that Pettiegrew was the Secret not-Keeper when No One Else Knew. > Secondly, have you noticed that Voldemort calls Lucius Malfoy by > his *first* name? Yes, and forgives Lucius for more disloyalty than he punished Avery for. It seems very clear to me that Lucius is Voldy's 'teacher's pet'. At first, I thought that it was a social class thing: Lord Voldemort is still working-class Tom Riddle from the Muggle orphanage in his heart, still impressed by the upper classes, and tremendously impressed with himself that he associates with a toff. But when I started working on time-lines and Malfoy family history and genealogy, it seemed to me that ages and circumstances are right for Lucius to be Riddle/Voldemort's godson; Lucius's extreme evilness could be due to Riddle/Voldemort having been a major influence on his upbringing. finwitch wrote: > Knuts... A magical knot that tied the World I keep thinking the Knut has something to do with King Canute who ordered the tide not to come in. From siskiou at earthlink.net Tue Mar 12 08:51:31 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 00:51:31 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Potters' Profession In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14052113823.20020312005131@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36379 Hi, Sunday, March 10, 2002, 3:48:19 PM, serenadust wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ms Lizard Gizzard wrote: >> One thing that JKR did reveal is that James had >> inherited a great wealth and "did not have to work." >> >> I suppose that doesn't mean he did not work, but she >> seemed to indicate that he had a life of leisure. > I assumed that she meant that James did not have to work for money. In PoA Vernon mentions in a conversation with Aunt Marge that James Potter didn't work (was unemployed). I'm not sure, though, how truthful anything is that Vernon says about the Potters. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From pen at pensnest.co.uk Tue Mar 12 09:25:51 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:25:51 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts Upkeep and Lack of Tuition In-Reply-To: <3C8D6A64.812BB003@erols.com> References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36380 >> Where does Hogwarts get its >> funds to continue running at all, let alone at the level of decadence >> that it apparently does? Perhaps Hogwarts is the wizard equivalent of a muggle 'state school'. Our state schools are paid for via taxes. The wizarding community as a whole may pay for the running of Hogwarts. Perhaps Hogwarts has to be a boarding school because of the small size and geographical spread of the wizarding community in the British Isles. There may only be enough wizards and witches to require one school, so it has to be one at which the students can live. (If there are in fact other, less prestigious, schools of magic in the UK, the same probably applies to them.) Hence, no tuition or boarding fees. I wonder what the expenses of running Hogwarts are? Teachers' salaries, of course, but I doubt there are any rates (taxes) on the building and grounds, and presumably all running repairs are done by magic. The castle itself must have been paid for long since. There are supplies for the various classes, eg Potions, and food - but the house elves work for nothing. Pen From PolgaraTheSorcess at hotmail.com Tue Mar 12 07:32:58 2002 From: PolgaraTheSorcess at hotmail.com (Polgara TheSorcess) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 02:32:58 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownupscharacter list symbols Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36381 > >>Interestingly, whichever symbol means half-blood, there's >half-bloods in Slytherin (look at Bulstrode and Goyle - >different symbols). I've always wondered whether or not >muggle-borns get sorted into Slyth >> > >True, but canon says specifically that Slytherin hated >muggle-borns (that's why he left Hogwarts). I suspect >that the Sorting Hat knows this and keeps anyone with >less than a "proper" amount of wizard blood out of >Slytherin. > >--Anna That sounds like a good speculation to me. After all, we know for sure that Tom Riddle was in Slytherin and he was a half-blood. His parentage would have been obvious to his contempoaries too considering his father was Muggle and thus he doesn't have the name of a long standing wizard family. We also know that he grew up in a Muggle orphange, meaning he probably didn't know anything about magic until Hogwarts. What I would really like to know, however, is whether or not the Slytherins tormented Riddle about it. Get teased for being a half-blood => kill all Muggles, sounds like Voldemort logic to me =P Polgara _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From reepicheepuk at yahoo.co.uk Tue Mar 12 07:33:19 2002 From: reepicheepuk at yahoo.co.uk (reepicheepuk) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:33:19 -0000 Subject: What's in a name? - Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36382 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elfundeb" wrote: I think you've got the best answer already -- Weasley > may simply be a variation of Wesley, i.e., west field. Really seems to be a plausible idea. Also, they are famous for their red hair, which is a clear hint towards Ireland, and this should be west enough. reepicheep From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Mar 12 13:18:22 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 08:18:22 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Weasleys/Dumbledore's gleam/Knut Message-ID: <172.4ef6784.29bf5a1e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36383 In a message dated 12/03/02 04:23:26 GMT Standard Time, elfundeb at aol.com writes: > Well, actually, I think you've got the best answer already -- Weasley > may simply be a variation of Wesley, i.e., west field. Why do I think > this? There is a Charlie Wesley (whom I have never met) on a group > circulation list at my office, and every time I see it I misread it > as Charlie Weasley. Besides, Ottery St. Catchpole is in the west of > England (west of Surrey, anyway). > Does *no-one* else see the physical resemblance between the tall, thin (well, not Molly), red-headed Weasleys and their animal namesakes? (Doesn't Ron even have a long snout...er, nose?). Really, to me it is so obvious that I almost hesitated to spell it out in my last post. If we're going to take Wesley as an origin, then we may just as well conclude that they have a Methodist background! Regarding their place of residence, there is a piece on this in the FAQ which I had long meant to comment on. The Ottery name suggests that they live in the West Country, where there are several places with this name element, but it has been pointed out that the taxi fare to London (they take a taxi to Kings Cross in GoF) from there would have been prohibitive. Not only this, but to get to Kings Cross by 11 am, they must live really close to London. Molly has to wait until the Post Office is open to telephone, wait for the taxis ( you wouldn't get more than one to a rural address that quickly), load them, which seemed to take some time, then get across London to the station, get all the luggage out and across to the platform. I would love them to live in deepest rural Somerset, but it just doesn't work. *********************************************** I've just discovered this post that I'd thought I'd already sent: In a message dated 09/03/02 04:09:37 GMT Standard Time, jklb66 at yahoo.com writes: > "For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something > like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes. But the next second, Harry was > sure he had imagined it, for when Dumbledore had returned to his seat > behind the desk, he looked as old and weary as Harry had ever seen > him." > > The triumphant look is followed almost instantly by weariness. When > I put the two together, I get the very uncomfortable feeling that > Voldemort has indeed given himself a fatal flaw; that Harry's death > will cause/allow Voldemort's. Dumbledore has a brief, "Gotcha!" > moment followed by crushing weight of the knowledge that a boy he has > come to love may die. > Eloise Or is it his own death that he forsees? Perhaps an acknowledgement that as far as the working out of the prediction which says that Harry will be instrumental in Voldemort's ultimate downfall, he has done all that he can. She certainly labours the aging factor. Hey, I've just thought of something, probably nothing, but I'll try it anyway. What if the reason, or at least *a* reason that Dumbledore trusts Snape is because Snape is actually keeping him alive, by the potion that 'stoppers death'? Or perhaps he too, has been using the elixir of life, not needing it as much as Flamel, but his aging accelerated as it runs out. Since writing the above, we've been listening to the end of GoF again and one of the things that has struck me is the way in which JKR emphasises Dumbledore's physical strength at the end of the book: they way he lifts Harry from the ground, the way he leaps lightly down into Moody's trunk ( and extricates himself), the way he kicks Crouch-Moody's body over, etc. He may be looking old, but he's not acting old and certainly not feebly. Catlady comments on Finwitch > > > Knuts... A magical knot that tied the World > > I keep thinking the Knut has something to do with King Canute who > Yes, it does sound Norse. Well, it *is* Norse - Canute is the Anglicisation of Knut. But I can't resist reminding people that the point of the story was that Canute wished to prove to his nobles that he had *no* god-like powers over the waves. It's so often related the wrong way round. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Mar 12 13:29:36 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 08:29:36 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] More on Mrs Norris Message-ID: <61.1c55eb15.29bf5cc0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36384 Can I just ask Captain Tabouli whether the comment in GoF (the Egg and the Eye) that Mrs Norris's lamp-like eyes are so very like those of her master has any bearing on what is going on in the FLIRTIAC dinghy? Before FLIRTIAC was launched, I had taken it as an indication that they might be related, which would lend a rather unpleasantly perverted twist to an already distasteful scenario (unless she was his cousin, perhaps). Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmmears at prodigy.net Tue Mar 12 15:20:45 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:20:45 -0000 Subject: Some Sirius Black Questions. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36385 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., " I wrote: > He was dragging him down there > >in desperate anticipation of Harry following them. The only reason > >Ron's leg broke is that he had hooked it around a root to resist > >being dragged away, not because Black was really trying to hurt him. Then Susanne wrote: > > And why, exactly did Black want Harry to follow, anyhow? > > As a witness? To explain his innocence to Harry? > >I guess nobody besides Lupin would have believed him, if > >they hadn't seen Scabbers transform into Pettigrew. > > Maybe he should have planned on more witnesses? > > Would he have been able to persuade Dumbledore to listen and > > watch, if he had tried? and then Jennifer wrote: > My impression of the scene was that Sirius dragged Ron to the > Shreiking Shack only because Ron had Scabbers/Peter in his pocket. > He was "grateful" to Harry (and Hermione) for following Ron, not > because he wanted them there, but because he didn't want them back at > the castle getting help. He wanted to kill Peter, pure and simple. You're absolutely right, Jennifer. In trying to defend Sirius concerning the Harry-choking and leg-breaking, I failed to express myself very well. Of course his main objective was to get to Peter/Scabbers, and he had to take Ron to do it. He probably wasn't even particularly thinking of Harry at that moment, although he later said, ""I thought you'd come and help your friend," he said hoarsely. His voice sounded as though he had long since lost the habit of using it."Your father would have done the same for me. Brave of you, not to run for a teacher. I'm grateful...it will make everything much easier..."" At this point, I began to realize that Sirius probably wasn't going to be the evil Voldy-supporter he had been made out to be, and that JKR had pulled off yet another instance of characters not being what they first seemed. Thanks for the clarification, Jennifer. Jo Serenadust From magicalme at comcast.net Tue Mar 12 15:31:05 2002 From: magicalme at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:31:05 -0000 Subject: SHIP: FLIRTIAC and Florence -- Together at Last (WASRon's hip) In-Reply-To: <008d01c1c96c$e0536fe0$3332c2cb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36386 I go away for a few hours, and all heck breaks out in the Bay: ************** Tabouli assaulted: > The Captain dumps Elkins on a stack of lifejackets in disgust. > Wait, Elkins! Don't let Tabouli knock you around like that! Boy, that looked like it really hurt. Listen, I can help. The FLIRTIAC/Kittygro/Love Triangle is right on target. It just needs a minor course correction and a little canon. Gimme that spray paint and let's see what we can do. Consider this. In GoF, someone is kissing Florence behind the greenhouse. Oh, we've floated ideas. Florence Lestrange is a popular theory. Triangles, trapezoids and other geometric figures have been proposed. But none of those theories has caught fire. And there's a reason for that -- none is true. They're way, way off, in fact. The truth, my friends, is that Florence is *Florence Norris*. (The name just rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it?) Florence Norris is a seventh-year Slytherin Hogwarts student, who happens to be Snape's girlfriend and happens to be rather fetching. And a little loose, if you ask me. But Snape doesn't know that. Snape is thinking of proposing to the curvy Florence Norris, as he is oh-so- sure that their love is true, and that he is the only greasy-haired, hooked-nose one for her. Snape is *way* out of his league. Let's just say that Snape should have kept the receipt for the ring, because Florence proves herself unworthy of his skimpy diamond. Bertha Jorkins catches Florence behind the greenhouse kissing . . . yeah, that's right, she's kissing *Filch*! Let's pause right here to check our bearings. Yup, we're on course because it all makes sense. Wouldn't Florence hide behind a large building if she were about to kiss Filch? Who wouldn't? She has standards, a reputation (so to speak) to protect, doesn't she? That Florence. She is just one of those girls who craves male attention, and just about any male will do. She also likes the excitement, the risk, the giddy high of enticing a Hogwarts employee to yield to her advances. It just makes her go weak in the knees. For his part, Filch is hiding because he has no business kissing a student. He could lose his job for that. His knees are rather weak, too. But then nosy Bertha turns up. Filch hexes Bertha. What? What's that, you say? Filch is a Squib? Filch can't hex anything or anyone? Pah! as Tabouli would say. Filch most certainly was *not* a Squib back then. In fact, Filch was about as far from a Squib as you could be. Filch was . . . the Hogwarts Potions Master. He was perfectly magical and capable of hexing anyone he wished to hex. So he hexed Bertha when she threatened to rat him out. Now Filch is *really* in deep. Making out with a student is bad enough. Hexing a student is worse. Bertha is ticked that a teacher hexed her, and Bertha-the-Big-Mouth tells the whole thing to MoM. MoM hands down the ultimate penalty for Filch's abuse of his magical power and authority -- MoM essentially busts him down in rank by removing his wizarding powers. Dumbledore takes pity on Filch and keeps him on as caretaker -- Filch has lived his whole life as a wizard and has nowhere else to go. The Pensieve scene with Bertha is foreshadowing for Filch's compelling and very Bangy backstory. But what about Snape? Oh, that Snape. He has this unfortunate tendency to hold grudges. When Snape learns that Florence Norris has been unfaithful with that hideous git Filch, he takes it rather personally. He slips Florence the Kittygro cocktail he had been developing with Filch in Potions class. Dumbledore is aghast when he finds out, but figures there's no point in retaliating against Snape. After all, Snape is just a student; Filch never should have been developing such a dangerous potion in the first place. Instead, he assigns Snape the job of reversing the Kittygro cocktail -- a task that Snape is still working on. Thanks to Elkins and Tabouli, there's plenty of canon already lying about on deck, so I won't repeat it. I will add a few bits, though. We know that someone will do magic late in life. That person will be Filch, because he is a powerful wizard whose powers have been repressed. Maybe Filch will be faced with an emergency sufficient to restore his powers (perhaps Mrs. Norris will choke on the Mother of All Hairballs). Or MoM will decide to restore Filch's powers now that Voldemort has returned and they need every powerful Good wizard they can get. Ah, it just gets better and better. Because everyone on Voldemort's side believes Filch is just a Squib, Filch will then be able to launch ::caresses FEATHERBOA:: an *Ambush* against the Dark Side! Still not convinced? Well, I'm not buying this "Filch is a poor little Squib" nonsense for one minute. It doesn't add up. If Filch has been a Squib all his life, why does he choose to live on the bottom rung of the wizarding social ladder -- a non-magical janitor at a school, scorned, tormented and ridiculed by the students? Wouldn't anyone choose to live life as a Muggle rather than endure that? Not if they had always been a powerful wizard and still had hope that their powers would be restored. But all of the FLIRTIAC theorists still have to answer one thorny question -- why does Florence Norris show up on the Marauder's Map as Mrs. Norris? This is quite simple for the FLIRTIAC Florence Kittygro Triangle Believers. Animagi (Sirius, Peter) show up as their real names. Temporarily polyjuiced people (Crouch Jr.) show up as their real names. Mrs. Norris is neither an animagus or polyjuiced. Mrs. Norris is a cat because of a potion that actually turned her into a cat permanently. She really *is* just a cat. Where did the name "Mrs. Norris" come from? See, Snape gave Florence the name "Mrs. Norris" as a sick, twisted, lazy, demented joke. He was going to marry her and make her his Mrs., but she ruined *everything*. He can hardly name her Mrs. Snape, so he calls her Mrs. Norris. So I issue a challenge to those with competing Mrs. Norris theories: Explain exactly how it is that Mrs. Norris shows up that way on the Marauder's Map instead of showing up under her first and last name, like every other witch or wizard. Cindy (hoping Elkins didn't get a painful rug burn from landing on those scratchy lifejackets) From jmmears at prodigy.net Tue Mar 12 15:33:08 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:33:08 -0000 Subject: The Potters' Profession In-Reply-To: <14052113823.20020312005131@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36387 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne wrote: > > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ms Lizard Gizzard wrote: > > >> One thing that JKR did reveal is that James had > >> inherited a great wealth and "did not have to work." > >> > >> I suppose that doesn't mean he did not work, but she > >> seemed to indicate that he had a life of leisure. I wrote: > > I assumed that she meant that James did not have to work for money. Susanne wrote: > In PoA Vernon mentions in a conversation with Aunt Marge > that James Potter didn't work (was unemployed). > > I'm not sure, though, how truthful anything is that Vernon says > about the Potters. I think that it would be safe to assume that *nothing* Vernon says about the Potters (inculding Harry) is true. First, he tells the car crash lie, then the lie about where Harry attends school, and then portrays James as an unemployed bum. It's very likely that Vernon actually had no idea what sort of work James did, and that he wouldn't be able to understand it even if he did. JKR has stated that we will find out more about the Potter's occupations in upcoming books, but I think it's extremely unlikely that they were idle rich. Jo Serenadust From bonnie at niche-associates.com Tue Mar 12 15:48:15 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:48:15 -0000 Subject: All things green Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36388 Class!!! ::students continue conversing, tossing spitballs, and horsing around:: Class!!!! ::if anything, noise gets louder; paper airplane buzzes teacher's head:: very well, then ::with a flourish of her wand, she makes a loud bang; tomfoolery and nonsense cease and desist:: Thank you for your kind attention. In honor of the upcoming St. Patrick's Day, I'm giving you an assignment. ::class groans loudly:: No, it shouldn't be so hard. You are all to find five green things mentioned in the Harry Potter series. Points will be given for each original item posted, and the House that gets the most points wins a virtual trophy. You must quote the entire sentence that contains the word green, the book it's from, edition (US or UK), and page number. For example, "The light slid over a gigantic snake skin, of a vivid, poisonous green, lying curled and empty across the tunnel floor." CoS (US), 303. You are limited to five examples each so those people who actually do have something better to do than research the entire series can have half a chance. Oh, and make sure you list your House name, so we can give out the appropriate pointage. And if you repeat something already posted, it won't count. --Dicentra of Gryffindor, but this one's a freebie p.s. Do remember that Yahoo! Groups will be down for maintenance March 15-18. Contest ends on the 19th. From ffionmiles at hotmail.com Tue Mar 12 16:45:45 2002 From: ffionmiles at hotmail.com (ffimiles) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 16:45:45 -0000 Subject: What's in a name? - Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36389 On the subject of the Weasley name, ir ead somewhere that there was a character called 'Running Weasel', who was a great stratagist and a great leader of men - ala Ron's Chess prowess - though he did ultimately fall in battle. This was on some website about the names in HP - i.e that there is a figure in [I think] Greek mythology called Hagrid Rubeus. Just another theory about the name - or maybe JKR just liked the sound of it! I do! From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu Tue Mar 12 17:46:08 2002 From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (Hillman, Lee) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:46:08 -0500 Subject: Voldemort's Naming Conventions (Lucius); Sirius in GoF Message-ID: <95774A6A6036D411AFEA00D0B73C864303B058FE@exmc3.urmc.rochester.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 36390 Hi, everyone! Boggles observed: > > I read it as paternalistic. The other Death Eaters are treated as > employees, or worse, servants. Lucius is treated as the > son-surrogate, the heir apparent to Voldemort's role. He is the one > to whom much is given, and for whom much is forgiven - but from whom > much will be expected. What were we saying about Draco earlier? > And Rita concurred: > Yes, and forgives Lucius for more disloyalty than he punished Avery > for. It seems very clear to me that Lucius is Voldy's 'teacher's > pet'. At first, I thought that it was a social class thing: Lord > Voldemort is still working-class Tom Riddle from the Muggle orphanage > in his heart, still impressed by the upper classes, and tremendously > impressed with himself that he associates with a toff. But when I > started working on time-lines and Malfoy family history and > genealogy, it seemed to me that ages and circumstances are right for > Lucius to be Riddle/Voldemort's godson; Lucius's extreme evilness > could be due to Riddle/Voldemort having been a major influence on his > upbringing. And I too must agree. I picked up on the father/son relationship implicit there, and as I've said before, while I don't think their relationship was ever formalized ("Uncle" Tom), I do believe Voldemort capitalized on a paternal attitude with Lucius, to strengthen their bond and feel more secure in relying on Lucius. I get the sense that Lucius is one of the chief lieutenants, and Voldemort seems to feel that his loyalty is not in question, despite his actions. Again, that reinforces my idea that recanting and saying he'd been under Imperius or somehow compelled to work for Voldemort was a contingency plan they had for a while--Voldemort doesn't seem too surprised that his "slippery" friend came out of the unrest with nary a scratch on his solid-gold reputation. Unlike Rita, I don't think it's his influence on Lucius's childhood--directly--that makes their relationship so close (if indeed, it's really that close). They do have to have been close enough that he'd entrust Lucius with his real name and school things--or alternatively, if Lucius knew that Voldemort was Riddle, he went hunting for Tom's school things--and forgive him for so much so easily. I think the hold Voldemort has over Lucius is brought out of the link he offers to Lucius's own father--but my backstory is long and has been documented on this list before. Hm. I just flashed on something else up there: that perhaps, Lucius is not really that close to Voldemort, that Voldemort didn't actually tell him who he really is, but that Lucius discovered it or figured it out and went looking for Riddle's stuff at some point. If it was after Voldemort fell, perhaps he really was looking for a way to bring him back? But in any case, I also think that Lucius has a few twists planned for his master--an ace or two up his sleeve. I don't think he's naive enough to believe that Voldemort will really treat any of his servants well in the end, so I think Lucius is plotting his own method of being indispensible to make sure he survives and gets out of the Death Eaters precisely what he wants--if he can do. Though I also think you may not be too far off the track, Rita, in your initial reaction. I think that Voldemort does have practical reasons for associating with the Malfoys because of their money and status. And in my timeline, where Lucius's father was Riddle's school chum, he may well have been attracted to the friendship because it gave him a leg up in society. Even now: there is no doubt in my mind that Lucius is the wealthy gentleman who now owns Riddle house "for tax purposes." I think the new, improved Voldemort (with patented Harry!blood, no less) will be far less concerned about these matters of social strata. And now, to more Sirius matters. Debbie said: > I think it is the sane logical Sirius that appears in GoF, more than > any other, that has raised questions in many minds, at least mine, > about Sirius. In GoF he seems so calm, so > thoughtful, so methodical, in fact the antithesis of the spontaneous, > uncontrolled person he was portrayed as in most of PoA. Surely > someone who was as wild as Sirius appeared to be at Hogwarts, who > rode around on a (possibly Muggle) motorcycle, and who spent 12 > years -- virtually his entire adulthood -- at Azkaban could not have > had the life experiences to display the maturity he shows in GoF. > Well, I think the key here is that while I believe the GoF Sirius to be closer to the "real" Sirius, in that he is rational, perhaps still impulsive, but a little sadder, and a lot wiser, than in his childhood, I also think that we haven't seen the last of the volatile, loose canon Sirius. And yes, I think both have elements rooted in his "true" personality, but that we haven't actually seen the "real" Sirius yet. WILL THE REAL SIRIUS BLACK PLEASE STAND UP? I think that Sirius is displaying excellent coping skills in GoF. He has had a little time to recuperate over the summer, and he's getting back on an even keel, able to live day-to-day, but toward a positive result, rather than existing in survival mode for so long. When he makes the decision to come back to the country, I think he also makes the decision that he MUST be a responsible and protective force supporting Harry. By making that conscious decision, he can summon the willpower he needs to keep his head on straight. Harry needs him; therefore, he can cope with his own problems while he concentrates on Harry's. I think also that Sirius tries to keep from Harry how traumatized Azkaban has made him, but that the difficulties associated with his imprisonment and (let's face it) torture at the hands of the Dementors cannot fail but have further repercussions we haven't seen yet. Much as I like the character, if I were Dumbledore, even if he'd been cleared at the end of PoA, I would not have felt easy about letting Harry live with him. He cannot possibly be healed yet--but human beings have an uncanny ability to suppress their own demons in favour of more pressing matters--for limited periods of time. It's all part of a coping mechanism, if you ask me. I think part of why Dumbledore sent him to Lupin's to "lay low" was to be somewhere where Sirius could get some time to be relatively safe, where he can start working through some of the damage that the Dementors caused, and where someone else whom Dumbledore trusts can keep a watch over him. It's one of the more tragic elements of the books, IMO, that even if Sirius lives and is cleared, I believe it will not be safe for Harry to stay with him until he no longer needs Sirius in quite the same way. At some levels, yes, Sirius fulfilling the father role, whether at a distance or close up, is all Harry really needs--and will never outgrow--but I don't think he'll ever get to live with Sirius until he's grown up, and may be looking to strike out on his own, anyway. Well, that's rambling. Suffice to say, I do perceive that Sirius isn't done healing yet, and I think a loss of control may occur at a pivotal moment in the future. Whether it will be to the ultimate benefit or cost of Our Side, I shall not venture to say. I think, from the perspective of good plot development, he may well do something that jeopardizes the short-term goals of the Old Crowd, but that in the end, as with letting Peter live, it may work out to be for the best. But I can easily reconcile his GoF persona with his PoA one by saying that elements of both are the "real" Sirius, but neither is actually him. In the earlier book he is in the grip of his madness, while in the second book he is almost over-compensating for it. Gwen From jklb66 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 12 18:15:17 2002 From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:15:17 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Upkeep and Lack of Tuition In-Reply-To: <20020311232045.94970.qmail@web13503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36391 Liz wrote: > > But has it ever been declared that there is no > tuition? After all, (again) the story is told from > Harry's POV, and his tuition could have been provided > for in his parents' will. The Weasley's are the only > ones who are stated to be dreadfully poor, but they > are dedicated parents who surely would make the > sacrifice to put their children in Hogwarts. I've always thought that the Weasleys ARE poor BECAUSE they have to pay tuition for so many children! After all, Arthur is the head of a department at the MoM (albeit a very small department) so his salary can't be THAT bad. I've just always thought that most of his salary gets swallowed up paying Hogwarts tuition for their large brood. -Jennifer, whose parents only started to have money troubles when college tuitions needed to be paid From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Tue Mar 12 18:28:03 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (Caroline Flowers) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:28:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Rita Skeeter Ever So Evil?? Message-ID: <20020312182803.63332.qmail@web10407.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36392 Eloise wrote: I worry about Rita too... She saw Sirius transform, right? And *everything* that went on between Fudge & Dumbledore in the hospital room? I don't know about Ever So Evil, but I think Ever So Opportunistic would be a great label for her... Now, will our heroes think of this? If not, Sirius' innocence may be a big plot point in OOTP.... Caroline B. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 12 18:51:10 2002 From: lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com (Ms Lizard Gizzard) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:51:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts Upkeep and Lack of Tuition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020312185110.74321.qmail@web13507.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36393 Jennifer wrote: > I've always thought that the Weasleys ARE poor > BECAUSE they have to pay tuition for so many > children! After all, Arthur is the head of a > department at the MoM (albeit a very small > department) so his salary can't be THAT bad. > I've just always thought that most of his salary > gets swallowed up paying Hogwarts tuition for their > large brood. Indeed. Now that the three oldest Weasley kids are out of school I hope to see the family free up a little more money for Ron's robes and jammies. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Tue Mar 12 18:53:01 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:53:01 -0000 Subject: Some Sirius Black Questions. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36394 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elfundeb" wrote: > I think it is the sane logical Sirius that appears in GoF, more than > any other, that has raised questions in many minds, at least mine, > about Sirius. The Sirius of the Prank, and the Sirius of PoA (till > about halfway through the Shrieking Shack), is indeed a very volatile > person, a person of unthinking action rather than calm reflection. > He then pulls off a sudden transformation, > In GoF he seems so calm, so > thoughtful, so methodical, in fact the antithesis of the spontaneous, > uncontrolled person he was portrayed as in most of PoA. I'm not sure he's as calm and methodical as all that in GoF. Coming out of hiding to return to Hogwarts and live in a cave just to be near Harry was a pretty reckless decision. It's not as if he was able to be on hand to protect Harry from immediate threats as a result; really, a letter to Dumbledore is the only response that was required. And, as we find out, Sirius did write to Dumbledore, but then he shlepped out to Hogwarts anyway. I think the main differences between PoA Sirius and GoF Sirius are that a) he's under far less immediate stress; b) he's had more time to recover from Azkaban; and c) his impulses are now being channeled constructively toward taking care of Harry, while in PoA they were being channeled destructively toward killing Peter. Let's face it, a person whose energies are focused entirely on commiting a murder is not going to come across as very nice. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From uncmark at yahoo.com Tue Mar 12 18:53:49 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:53:49 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Upkeep and Lack of Tuition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36395 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jklb66" wrote: > Liz wrote: > > > > But has it ever been declared that there is no > > tuition? After all, (again) the story is told from > > Harry's POV, and his tuition could have been provided > > for in his parents' will. The Weasley's are the only > > ones who are stated to be dreadfully poor, but they > > are dedicated parents who surely would make the > > sacrifice to put their children in Hogwarts. > > I've always thought that the Weasleys ARE poor BECAUSE they have to > pay tuition for so many children! After all, Arthur is the head of > a department at the MoM (albeit a very small department) so his > salary can't be THAT bad. I've just always thought that most of > his salary gets swallowed up paying Hogwarts tuition for their > large brood. Tuition might be covered by scholarships or any of several payment plans for government employees. I remember from college mty tuitioin was paid automatically through Financial aid. The biggest money drainer were the incidentals (clothing, mad money) and #1... books! I could see Molly Weasly's face in ChofS when the book list included ALL NEW books of Lockheart. No chance of second-hand books there! (I wonder if Harry realized how much he was helping by giving Ginny all of Lockheart's books in Flourish & Blots) in ChoS. As far as clothing, Ron probably got the brunt of hand me downs, PLUS his dreaded maroon sweater. (I remember my mom thought I looked good in green, which I hated.) Ginny on the other hand needed new robes, I can't see her fitting in any of her brothers. Do you think the Weasley's pay for Hogsmeade out of allowances or do they have summer jobs? Ron, Fred and George did not seem to be at a shortage there. All in All, I'm wondering if Harry ever offered money to the Dursley's parents, maybe as pitching in for his 2 weeks room & board or helping pay for the loss of the Ford Anglia? They'd no doubt refuse, but I wonder if Harry considered anonymous presents. Opinions? Uncmark From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Mar 12 19:00:15 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:00:15 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Rita the opportunist (was: Rita Skeeter Ever So Evil??) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36396 Caroline: > I worry about Rita too... She saw Sirius transform, > right? And *everything* that went on between Fudge & > Dumbledore in the hospital room? I don't know about > Ever So Evil, but I think Ever So Opportunistic would > be a great label for her... > Well, I thought she saw all that too, but when I went back to re-read, I don't think we can be sure. We know that Hermione catches her after all the revelations have been made, but we don't know exactly when Rita arrived on the scene. If she *has* seen and heard everything, then she's potentially BIG trouble. Eloise (who thinks that Rita truly *is* one of the most evil characters in the series, but not in the sense of being a Voldy supporter - yet!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jklb66 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 12 19:04:55 2002 From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:04:55 -0000 Subject: All things green In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36397 My list of 5 green items: 1. "A skinny boy of fourteen looked back at him, his bright green eyes puzzled under his untidy black hair." GoF, US p. 16 2. "'Er-- is it my eyes, or has everything gone green?' said Ron. It wasn't just Ron's eyes. They had walked into a patch of tents that were all covered with a thick growth of shamrocks..." GoF, US p.82 3. "'MORSMORDRE!' And something vast, green, and glittering erupted from the patch of darkness Harry's eyes had been struggling to penetrate; it flew up over the treetops and into the sky." GoF, US p.128 4. "There was a flash of blinding green light and a rushing sound, as though a vast, invisible something was soaring through the air-- instantaneously the spider rolled over onto its back, unmarked, but unmistakably dead." GoF, US p.216 5. "The left sock was bright red and had a pattern of broomsticks upon it; the right sock was green with a pattern of Snitches." GoF, US p. 409 P.S. It just occured to me as I did this list-- red and green are opposites (on the color wheel)-- and who do we know with green eyes? who do we know with red? Opposites! -Jennifer (give my points to Ravenclaw: I'd love to be a Gryffindor, but the Sorting Hat said I wasn't brave enough!) From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com Tue Mar 12 19:07:53 2002 From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:07:53 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black Questions. References: Message-ID: <001601c1c9f9$6e6161c0$6f97bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 36398 Further canon evidence that clearing his own name was secondary in importance: Sirius's knowledge of his own innocence kept him sane in Azkaban for 12 years, but he was unable to escape. I don't have my copy of PoA, but there is a quote, something like, - SNIP "But knowing that he was at Hogwarts, perfectly poised to strike if any hint should reach him that Voldemort was rising again, it lit a fire in my mind and gave me the strength I needed to escape." He wanted to escape in order to kill Peter and thereby protect Harry; the desire to clear his own name wasn't part of the equation. -Jennifer Nice to see someone talking sense about Sirius and so succinctly put. Sirius seems to change from *criminal* to almost *saint* over the course of his appearance in the books which I (poor soul) simply took for granted until I read what HPfGU-ers think of Harry's godfather. I suspect a lot of the more theatrical events can be put down to *writer's licence* after all, these are children's books and they see adults differently (a sort of black and white and capital letters view of life) and Sirius, admit it, would be DEADLY deadly dull otherwise. Sirius, burdened with guilt about having been the agent of James and Lily's demise is, until Remus brings an element of calm to the situation, consumed with desire for revenge and poor Ron is merely an unfortunate bystander,for want of a better word. Felicia Who thinks there is nothing wrong with Molly Weasley as a mum. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From graceofmyheart at hotmail.com Tue Mar 12 19:37:14 2002 From: graceofmyheart at hotmail.com (flower_fairy12) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:37:14 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Upkeep and Lack of Tuition In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36399 Uncmark said: > All in All, I'm wondering if Harry ever offered money to the > Dursley's parents, maybe as pitching in for his 2 weeks room & board > or helping pay for the loss of the Ford Anglia? They'd no doubt > refuse, but I wonder if Harry considered anonymous presents. I think you mean the Weasley Kids' parents. Y'know, I often wonder about wether they pay for the tuition. I mean, I know that the cost of buying books, robes, potion ingredients etc.. would cost a lot, but Arthur & Molly would still have nearly a whole year to save up again for the coming summer, so that they could buy more school supplies and stuff. Maybe Molly should get a job while the kids are away at Hogwarts, so that would bring in extra money. She just seems like a housewife who never does anything except cook & clean, & look after the kids, but we don't really know *what* she does during the school terms. I mean, she hasn't got Ginny to look after, and the older boys are able to look after themselves. Rosie http://magic-hogwarts.com From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue Mar 12 19:45:28 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:45:28 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Flying hedgehog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1325713400.20020312114528@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36400 Monday, March 11, 2002, 10:33:16 PM, mecki987 wrote: m> I'm sure we could find loads of hiding Death-Eaters, including Dadalus m> Diggle, who sent out the fireworks on the day LV left,just to tell him m> know *I'm here if you need me!* Oh no, I hope not!! Daedalus Diggle is my favorite Character We Haven't Seen Yet! I'm still hoping he's going to be a DADA teacher at some point. (Specialty: Advanced Dark Wizard-fighting Flying Maneuvers) -- Dave From porphyria at mindspring.com Tue Mar 12 22:53:36 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:53:36 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] All things green In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36401 OK, these are from PS/SS. All page numbers refer to the British "Adult" version, which has by far the coolest font. 1. Mr. Dursley was enraged to see that a couple of them weren't young at all; why, that man had to be older than he was, and wearing an emerald-green cloak! p.8. 2. The envelope was thick and heavy, made of yellowish parchment, and the address was written in emerald-green ink. p.30. 3. Inside was a large, sticky chocolate cake with Happy Birthday Harry written on it in green icing. p.40. 4. A tall, black-haired witch in emerald-green robes stood there. p.85 5. Harry had torn open the parcel to find a thick, hand-knitted sweater in emerald green and a large box of homemade fudge. p.147 Lots of clothing! I'll claim these points for Ravenclaw as well. Porphyria, who was tempted to add Snape in his green robes at the Slyterin/Griffindor game in PoA, but will leave that one for Eloise. :-) From saintbacchus at yahoo.com Tue Mar 12 20:23:37 2002 From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:23:37 -0000 Subject: All things green In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36402 1. "Ron picked up a green bean, looked at it carefully, and bit into a corner." -SS (American mass print paperback), 129 2. "It was decked out in the Slytherin colors of green and silver to celebrate Slytherin's winning the House Cup for the seventh year in a row." -SS (American mass print paperback), 378 3."Several people in green robes were walking onto the field, broomsticks in their hands." -CoS (American trade paperback), 110 4. "The little creature on the bed had large, bat-like ears and bulging green eyes the size of tennis balls." -CoS (American trade paperback), 12 5. "'Well...always the same hat. A tall one with a stuffed vulture on top. And a long dress...green, normally...and sometimes a fox-fur scarf.'" -PoA (American trade paperback), 135 I hate to be cliche, but give my points to Ravenclaw, too. I was hoping for either Ravenclaw or Slytherin... upon reflection, I think the Hat chose correctly. :) --Anna (*does happy not-modded-no-more dance*) From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Mar 12 20:40:50 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:40:50 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] All things green Message-ID: <13c.acc40c1.29bfc1d2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36403 > Porphyria, who was tempted to add Snape in his green robes at the > Slyterin/Griffindor game in PoA, but will leave that one for Eloise. :-) > Thanks, Porphyria, how ever did you guess that was one of my first thoughts? :-) So, that's No.1, but where's the canon? ( now look what you've got me doing , just when I'd nearly finished the first draft of that essay). Ah, yes.. PoA, (UK), p225 (1)'Behind the Slytherin goalposts, however, two hundred people were wearing green..... [How many points is that worth?], and Professor Snape sat in the very front row,( 2)wearing green like everyone else, and a very grim smile.' (3) CoS, 102 At the Deathday party, '... a slab of cheese covered in furry green mould' (4)CoS, 89 'A loud bang echoed around the stadium and a jet of green light shot out of the wrong end of Ron's wand, hitting him in the stomach and sending him reeling backwards on to the [unfortunately not specified as green] grass. (5) Cos, 63 'He tried not to look at a large, slimy something suspended in green liquid on a shelf behind Snape's desk.' Eloise, whom the Sorting Hat will keep putting into Gryffindor, though she has no idea why. ( Not that she's not pleased, of course.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Tue Mar 12 20:41:12 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:41:12 -0000 Subject: All things green In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36404 These are all from PoA, UK paperback edition, 'cause that's what I have on hand right now. 1. "The eyes behind his glasses were bright green, and on his forehead, clearly visible through is hair, was a thin scar, shaped like a bolt of lighting" -- page 10 2. "Stan came back downstairs, followed by a faintly green witch wrapped in a travelling cloak" -- page 32 3. "Snape picked up Trevor the toad in his left hand, and dipped a small spoon into Neville's potion, which was now green." -- page 97 4. "She had put on a green, sequined dress in honour of the occasion, making her look more than ever like a glittering, oversize dragonfly." -- page 169 5. "Harry sneaked along the path, where a particularly sloppy puddle yielded some foul-smelling green slude." -- page 207 There, and not a single emerald green among them. :-) Marina, claiming points for Ravenclaw rusalka at ix.netcom.com From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com Tue Mar 12 20:38:30 2002 From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:38:30 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Upkeep References: Message-ID: <001f01c1ca07$111ed660$149abc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 36405 >> Where does Hogwarts get its >> funds to continue running at all, let alone at the level of decadence that it apparently does? I always, for reasons I can't explain but perhaps being English helps, assumed that Hogwarts was a fee-paying school probably because it was a boarding school. I know I nearly went to one once, but fled to Holland instead... It would have involved, according to my Mum, large amounts of cash changing hands. The feeding of vast numbers of future wizards and witches must take considerable resources. A good Potions Professor can't be cheap :-)) and various other supporting teachers within a Desirable School's departments must attract premium applicants with the expectation of supporting facilities to match: ergo premium salaries. It all costs money and, as the wizarding world is NOT huge, I doubt if public wizard money could fund it. Assistance with places would, as it is in various forms with muggles, be available, but the necessity for fee-payments would account in no small part for the Weasley's impoverished situation. (Very, very proud to have the family at Hogwarts, but forever counting the sickles & knuts to keep them there....) Felicia Who's photograph of Alan Rickman did come out!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From boggles at earthlink.net Tue Mar 12 21:17:09 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:17:09 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] All things green In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36406 At 3:48 PM +0000 3/12/02, dicentra_spectabilis_alba wrote: > >No, it shouldn't be so hard. You are all to find five green things >mentioned in the Harry Potter series. Points will be given for each >original item posted, and the House that gets the most points wins a >virtual trophy. You must quote the entire sentence that contains the >word green, the book it's from, edition (US or UK), and page number. All from _Goblet of Fire_, US Scholastic edition: 1) "Next moment, what seemed to be a great green-and-gold comet came zooming into the stadium." p. 104 2) "Harry realized that it was actually comprised of thousands of tiny little bearded men with red vests, each carrying a minute lamp of gold or green." also p. 104 (and either JKR or her editor has made the composed/comprised mistake) 3) "Seven green blurs swept onto the field; Harry spun a small dial on the side of his Omnioculars and slowed the players down enough to read the word "Firebolt" on each of their brooms and see their names, embroidered in silver, upon their backs. p. 105 (Hmm . . . the Irish national Quiddich team has the same colors as the Slytherins) 4) "It wasn't as bad as he had expected, however; his dress robes didn't have any lace on them at all - in fact, they were more or less the same as his school ones, except that they were bottle green instead of black." p. 156 5) "He pressed his badge into his chest, and the message upon it vanished, to be replaced by another one, which glowed green: POTTER STINKS." p. 298 Give my points to Gryffindor - I thought I'd be Ravenclaw, but the Hat says no, and who am I to argue? :) -- - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon boggles at earthlink.net === Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 === GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+ c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+ ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U! From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Tue Mar 12 21:24:33 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 21:24:33 -0000 Subject: Discerning JKR's intentions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36407 OK, this is carried over from OT-Chatter. See 9946, 9951, 9952, 9953 there. The thread suffered from a degree of confusion between myself, Heidi, and Amy, so I am going to try to reformulate my original question here. The specific example at issue is the possibility that Neville is under a memory charm. Heidi's view is that: > ... it's obvious that JKR wanted it to be a reasonable conclusion for people to draw [that Neville is under a memory charm] ... she's written the story in such a way as to cause the reader to think "Ah- hah! That's what she's getting at with this juxtaposition!" My view is that while it may be true that JKR does want us to think that, it's *not* obvious that she does. (Please note that we are *not* debating whether it's obvious that Neville is under a charm: it's the degree to which JKR's intentions are visible.) My immediate question is 'Why is it obvious?' The question I really want to know the answer to is, what is it about us that makes things that are obvious to one person obscure to another? On OT-Chatter I theorised that it has, at least in part, to do with the 'two cultures' divide between scientists and humanists. Thoughts? David The mathematician Hardy was giving a lecture, and in the course of a particularly difficult proof, he stated that 'It is obvious from this that... '. A student put up his hand and asked 'Is it obvious?' Hardy stopped for a moment and said 'I need to think about that' and walked out of the theatre. After half an hour's absence he returned, said 'Yes', and continued with the proof. From mrboregard at excite.com Tue Mar 12 21:48:36 2002 From: mrboregard at excite.com (Mr_Boregard) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 21:48:36 -0000 Subject: Malfoy's Choice of Date Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36408 In GoF, Malfoy escorts Pansy Parkinson to the Yule Ball. You would think that a person of such lofty self worth would escort someone other than the hard faced Pansy. Are there any girls in the Slytherin house worthy of Malfoy's ideals or did he limit himself to the stock of Slytherin girls suitable to his personality? Mr. Boregard From rshuson80 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 12 21:08:05 2002 From: rshuson80 at yahoo.com (nyarth_meow) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 21:08:05 -0000 Subject: What's in a name? - Weasleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36409 Ohtoresonate says: > > Though most people in this fandom and in HP fan fiction (like > Malfoy > > in canon) conclude that the Weasleys' last name somehow connect > them > > to weasels, I find little to no evidence to support this > assumption. > > > > I say: On a vaguely related note, I was reading about basilisks today, and it's not just cockerals that are lethal to the King of Serpents, it's weasels too! Apparantly, a weasel will fight and kill a basilisk like a mongoose would a snake, and is also immune to it's stare. Seeing as Ginny Weasley no more luck against the basilisk than anyone else, I'd guess the weasel-weasley connection thing is noy a valid connection. Unless JKR hasn't read the same books on folklore as I have, or Ginny managed to survive precisely because of her weasely name, OR JKR decided not to mention it because it messed with her plot OR etc etc lol, nothing is certain in the world of HP -Nyarth, who thinks JKR chose the name Weasley coz she liked it, and no other reason! From ccnightrider at yahoo.com Tue Mar 12 22:45:04 2002 From: ccnightrider at yahoo.com (ccnightrider) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 22:45:04 -0000 Subject: Divination Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36410 Throughout the canon, various characters (Harry, Ron, Dumbledore, Hermione, et al) express suspicion towards divination. Do you think the wizarding world at large thinks divination is imprecise and untrustworthy, or just our heroes? -Morgan www.morganmalfoy.blogspot.com P.S. I'm new From emmbp at yahoo.com Tue Mar 12 21:17:51 2002 From: emmbp at yahoo.com (emmbp) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 21:17:51 -0000 Subject: All things green In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36411 1) GoF, US hardback, pg 298. (incidentally the first page I openned too) "He pressed his badge into his chest, and the message upon it vanished, to be replaced by another one, which glowed green: Potter Stinks." 2) GoF, pg 304 "She reached again into her crocodile bage and drew out a long acid-green quill and a roll of parchment..." 3)GoF pg 306 "Frowning, he avoided her gaze and looked down at words the quill ahd just written: Tears fill those startlingly green eyes as our conversation turns to the parents he can barely remember." 4)GoF pg 30 " But the next moment Harry had begun to spin very fast, and the Dursleys' living room was whipped out of sight in a rush of emerald-green flames." 5)GoF pg 195 " As each swelling was popped, a large amount of thick yellowish green liquid burst forth which smelled strongly of petrol." Brady of Gryffindor From rshuson80 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 12 22:28:51 2002 From: rshuson80 at yahoo.com (nyarth_meow) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 22:28:51 -0000 Subject: Malfoy's Choice of Date In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36412 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Mr_Boregard" wrote: > In GoF, Malfoy escorts Pansy Parkinson to the Yule Ball. You would > think that a person of such lofty self worth would escort someone > other than the hard faced Pansy. Are there any girls in the Slytherin > house worthy of Malfoy's ideals or did he limit himself to the stock > of Slytherin girls suitable to his personality? > > Mr. Boregard Perhaps Draco genuinely likes her? Maybe she has hidden depths. *g* We, after all, only get to see the side of the wee Malfoy that Harry and the Gryffindors see, and Harry is rather naturally inclined to focus on the bad in Slytherins. OR, the other extreme, Malfoy and his gang of Slytherins are not representative - or even popular- with the whole of Slyth. After all, there's half-bloods in Slytherin (according to JKR's student list) who might find his views offensive, so maybe his little group is more marginalized than we get to see. And while all wizards who've gone bad are Slytherins (According to Hagrid in PS, although he'd forgotten Sirius Black, then considered a Dark wizard), it doesn't follow that all Slytherins are naturally Voldemort supporters. Parkinson might have been the only girl willing *and* suitable (ie purebred) -Nyarth, who identifies with the Slytherins more than any other house, *isn't* a racist fanatic, and likes her shades of grey as opposed to black and white / good and evil ^_^ From k_wayment at hotmail.com Tue Mar 12 23:29:12 2002 From: k_wayment at hotmail.com (Kyli Wayment) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 23:29:12 Subject: [HPforGrownups]Re: Malfoy's Choice of Date Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36413 Mr. Boregard wrote: >In GoF, Malfoy escorts Pansy Parkinson to the Yule Ball. You would >think that a person of such lofty self worth would escort someone >other than the hard faced Pansy. Are there any girls in the Slytherin >house worthy of Malfoy's ideals or did he limit himself to the stock >of Slytherin girls suitable to his personality? Are you inmplying that Pansy Parkinson is ugly? She may, in fact be very pretty, but we hear Harry's point of view, and he could possibly think that, since she's a mean Slytherin girl, she's ugly and has a face like a pug, as it is always written. I don't know...that just came to mind when I read this post. ~Kyli _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From mdemeran at hotmail.com Tue Mar 12 23:54:11 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (Meg Demeranville) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:54:11 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: All things green References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36414 My list of 5 green items: All from US hardback 1. Comparing Harry to the Dursleys "Harry, on the other hand, was small and skinny, with brilliant green eyes and jet-black hair that was always untidy." CoS 4 2. Description of the Weasley's garden "The Dursley wouldn't have liked it - there were plenty of weeds, and the grass needed cutting - but there were gnarled trees all around the walls, plants Harry had never seen spilling from every flower bed, and a big green pond full of frogs." CoS 36 3.Using Floo powder "It felt as though he was being sucked down a giant drain. He seemed to be spinning very fast - the roaring in his ears was deafening - he tried to kkep his eyes open but hte whirl of green flames made him feel sick - something hard knocked his elbow and he tucked it in tightly, still spinning and spinning - now it felt as though cold hadns were slapping his face - squinting through his glasses he saw a blurred stream of fireplaces and snatched glimpses of the rooms beyond - his bacon sandwiches were churning inside of him - he closed his eyes again wishing it would stop, and then -" CoS 49 4. During the Dueling club "A haze of greenish smoke was hovering over the scene." CoS 192 5. And finally there is the Cornelius Fudge description "The stranger had rumpled gray hair and an anxious expression, and was wearing a strange mixture of clothes, a scarlet tie, a long black cloak, and pointed purple boots. Under his arm he carried a lime-green bowler." CoS 261 My points go to Gryffindor. I think the Sorting Hat confused stubbornness with bravery, but who am I to argue? Meg [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Wed Mar 13 00:12:10 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:12:10 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Divination References: Message-ID: <3C8E995A.AB2A2592@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36415 ccnightrider wrote: > > Throughout the canon, various characters (Harry, Ron, Dumbledore, > Hermione, et al) express suspicion towards divination. Do you think > the wizarding world at large thinks divination is imprecise and > untrustworthy, or just our heroes? > -Morgan > www.morganmalfoy.blogspot.com > I think some of the characters believe it's imprecise, but I don't think it's imprecise regarding the story. D must think there's value in it, otherwise he wouldn't hire Trelawney. I believe there is a person in the books who has the Sight, but it's not Trelawney. She might have a gift, but a Seer, IMO, would remember particular predictions. D has also stated that Trelawney has now made 2 correct predictions. So I think there's some basis to believe that the Sight will come in handy in future books. I think if we watch closely, we'll learn who's a trustworthy Seer and who's not. So it's not a question as a whole - Is it untrustworthy? - but rather *who* is untrustworthy. My personal opinion is that Ron is a true Seer. I know there are lots of folks on the list who disagree. Harry has dreams, but he's more clairvoyant, and sees things as they are happening. Ron seems to have a knack (whether he's taking his class seriously or not) to predict certain outcomes in the future. Haha...it would be a funny twist of fate if Hermione turns out to be the real Seer. Welcome to the group! -Katze From porphyria at mindspring.com Wed Mar 13 00:06:35 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:06:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Divination Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36416 Morgan asked: That's a good question. I can't help but think that JKR often uses Ron to represent the 'average' opinion of the wizarding world -- IHMO Ron's like Harry's Virgil, guiding him through the 9 levels of the Potterverse. :-) He's the one who's function is to explain to Harry stuff like what Squibs are, what Quidditch is, what Parseltongue is, what Mudblood means, etc. His views are often contrasted with Draco's, with Ron's being the more 'normal' viewpoint. So the fact that Ron seems to think his Divination class is a load of manure probably means that not all wizards take it that seriously. Lavender and Parvati are Trelawney's biggest fans, and are they even wizard born? I'm pretty sure Lavender is not. So that's not enough to count as a wizard recommendation. I can't think of an example of where a wizard character takes Divination seriously enough to practice it outside of this class. Also, I'd have to say that the fact that Dumbledore and McGonagall give the subject short shrift and the fact that Trelawney herself doesn't seem popular amongst any of her colleagues strike me as strong indicators that respect does not *need* to be paid in that direction. Still the fact that it's taught at Hogwarts at all must be an indication of something. I suspect it's a little like the real world -- some individuals believe in it, but many don't. About a month ago in post #35373 Elkins suggested that there might be something problematic, Dark, or even corrupting about powerful divination, judging by Trelawney's flustered denial of her 2nd authentic prophecy, and the fact that it seemed to involve possession by a not-too-friendly spirit. You should go back in the archives and read that post. If she's right it could account for why most wizard's might want to avoid Divination in all but it's weakest, most unreliable forms. Welcome to the list! ~~Porphyria -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From kerelsen at quik.com Wed Mar 13 00:09:46 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:09:46 -0500 Subject: Malfoy's Choice of Date Message-ID: <007c01c1ca23$63ba3ba0$db21b0d8@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 36417 Mr. Boregard scribed: > In GoF, Malfoy escorts Pansy Parkinson to the Yule Ball. You would > think that a person of such lofty self worth would escort someone > other than the hard faced Pansy. Are there any girls in the Slytherin > house worthy of Malfoy's ideals or did he limit himself to the stock > of Slytherin girls suitable to his personality? Perhaps it wasn't his choice, but he got "encouraged" by his father to do so. Maybe the Parkinsons are a family that Lucius Malfoy wants to encourage an alliance with in the future? And just because Pansy is described as "hard faced" doesn't mean that she isn't pretty or even beautiful. I've seen people who I could easily describe as a "hard beauty." Their features are exquisite, but the expression on them lessens the prettiness. Then again, maybe the other girls he asked told him "no." :) Bernadette "Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art. It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival." -- C.S. Lewis (1898-1963). From jmmears at prodigy.net Wed Mar 13 01:55:35 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 01:55:35 -0000 Subject: All things green In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36418 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: You are all to find five green things > mentioned in the Harry Potter series. Points will be given for each > original item posted, and the House that gets the most points wins a > virtual trophy. You must quote the entire sentence that contains the > word green, the book it's from, edition (US or UK), and page number. it > won't count. > 1) Meanwhile, in the changing rooms, Harry and the rest of the team were changing into their scarlet quidditch robes (Slytherin would be playing in Green). PS UK edition, page 136 (paperback) 2) She was a very pretty woman. She had dark red hair and her eyes - her eyes are just like mine, Harry thought, edging a little closer to the glass. Bright green - exactly the same shape.. PS UK paperback edition, page 153 3) And slowly, Harry looked unto the faces of the other people in the mirror and saw other pairs of green eyes like his,... PS UK paperback, page 153 4) The cut had turned a nasty shade of green. PS UK paperback, page 174 5) In an instant, the green hangings became scarlet and the silver became gold; PS UK paperback, p 222. Points to Gryffindor, please. Jo Serenadust, hoping she's not duplicating any other lists posted while she's typing From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Wed Mar 13 01:56:26 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 01:56:26 -0000 Subject: Rita Skeeter Ever So Evil?? In-Reply-To: <20020312182803.63332.qmail@web10407.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36419 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Caroline Flowers wrote: > Hermione's ban on > scandal-mongering in the press. Ripe time to sell her > skills to Voldy, I'd > say. (Oh, good! Rita Skeeter is Ever so Evil!)> > > I worry about Rita too... She saw Sirius transform, > right? And *everything* that went on between Fudge & > Dumbledore in the hospital room? I don't know about > Ever So Evil, but I think Ever So Opportunistic would > be a great label for her... Yes, the one-year ban sounds more plot-driven than character- driven. McG has taught the Griffs how to transfigure beetles into buttons. So why didn't Herme-OWN-ni-ni turn Ms Skeeter into a button, and feed her to a passing owl? Tex Ever So Creative From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Wed Mar 13 02:18:16 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 02:18:16 -0000 Subject: Divination In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36420 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ccnightrider" wrote: > Throughout the canon, various characters (Harry, Ron, Dumbledore, > Hermione, et al) express suspicion towards divination. Do you think > the wizarding world at large thinks divination is imprecise and > untrustworthy, or just our heroes? > -Morgan > www.morganmalfoy.blogspot.com People don't seem to recognise what divination is. Trelawney doesn't seem to define it, so the students don't know exactly what they're doing. Moreover, Trelawney doesn't seem to be able to verify the students' work. Harry's reading of the Beaky scene in the crystal ball, for example, is very different from what she expects. But she doesn't call his bluff, if it was a bluff. Of course, it was verified by Beaky's escape, IIRC before final marks were given for the term. But, then, it might be the other way around. JKR didn't tell us that Harry didn't see anything; that's an assumtion on our part. Might it be that Harry's visualization of Beaky flying away brought the event about, as did Ron's "prediction" of almost drowning? This might explain why wizards are a little chary of divination -- Be careful what you predict! Tex From klhurt at yahoo.com Wed Mar 13 03:06:10 2002 From: klhurt at yahoo.com (Kelly Hurt) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:06:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Discerning JKR's intentions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020313030610.28200.qmail@web14204.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36421 --- davewitley wrote: >My view is that while it may be true >that JKR does want us to think that, >it's *not* obvious that she does. >(Please note that we are *not* >debating whether it's obvious that >Neville is under a charm: it's the >degree to which JKR's intentions are >visible.) * We are told that, while at Hogwarts, Bertha Jorkins was a gossip with a steel-trap mind. * We are told that later in her life, while working at the MoM, she bacame forgetful, a bungler shuffled from department to department. * We are told Crouch Sr. placed a memory charm on her. [sidenote: While it is implied, I don't think JKR ever states that the Memory Charm caused the decline of Bertha Jorkins's mental processes. klh] * We are told that Neville is forgetful, a bit of a bungler. * It is obvious that Neville & Bertha are similarly forgetful. * It is obvious JKR wrote it that way. * It is also obvious, after 4 novels, that JKR likes to drop hints. * I, therefore, find it obvious that JKR intended her readers to pick up on Neville's & Bertha's forgetfulness. [I can almost her saying "well spotted!" to some child who brings this up.:=)] What is NOT obvious to me is whether Neville & Bertha together are a clue or a red herring. Kelly the Yarn Junkie ===== Pensieve A Harry Potter List for Adults Low Traffic - High Quality http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pensieve __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From tabouli at unite.com.au Wed Mar 13 03:24:37 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:24:37 +1100 Subject: SHIP: A Captain's work is never done Message-ID: <003701c1ca3e$d2f5ed00$352bdccb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 36422 Observing some baffled newcomers on shore, Captain Tabouli (well known for her kindly didactic spirit) feels a twinge of conscience. How thoughtless of her, leaving hapless newbies stranded on the beach without offering them a brochure on her SHIPs! Pausing for a moment in her negotiations with Elkins, she reaches into her blazer and takes out a chic, lollipop pink mobile phone. Her first call is to her LOLLIPOPS fighter pilot, currently circling over Theory Bay on the lookout for enemy fleets. She instructs him to write the following messages in the sky for the purposes of education: The Good Ship LOLLIPOPS = Love Of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Severus The Daring Dinghy FLIRTIAC = Filch's Lover Is Regretting Transformation Into A Cat Being ever opportunistic, she then makes a call to her Judy, her marketing manager, and organises to set up a stall on the pier selling badges and berths. Pleased with her morning's work, Captain Tabouli flips her phone closed and returns to negotiations with Elkins, attempting to forge a compromise between Elkins' desire to give Snape a romantic liaison with the new DADA teacher and her own central LOLLIPOPS tenet, which states that Snape was definitely, unquestionably in love with Lily. Privately, she does not think a future romance for Snape is at all likely. In her view, Snape's scars run so deep in the Land of Love (valleys gashed into his heart, grown over with lilies) his heart is never likely to stray there again. However, in the interests of inclusiveness and fair play, she has always been willing to accommodate anyone who adheres to the central tenet of Snape loved Lily. She feels that her altruistic, accommodating demeanour reached its peak with the building of the LOVESLAVE (League Of Violently Enamoured Snape/Lily And Vampire Enthusiasts) wing, where she provided Pippin and her fellow love slaves with prosthetic fangs, fake blood and hydroponically grown garlic bulbs to assist them in the development of theories to support their dark faith. By comparison, giving Snape a post-Lily love interest seems positively benign. However, just as Captain Tabouli is forging a contract with Elkins, whereby Snape develops a Pygmalionesque attachment to the newly human Mrs Norris which helps him recover from his grief regarding Lily, she hears a howl of protest from the LOLLIPOPS deck: Eileen: > UGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! > >I bought into the flamingo in the Gothic Cathedral idea, but two flamingos? Are we redecorating the ship in flamingos? Should we bring in Captain Charis to do some colour co-ordination? > >If you and Elkins want to do it, I'll leave it to you. But I'm begging leave to pack up and visit Cindy on her "Big Bang Destroyer" for a bit. I'm taking George, the fair-faced cabin boy, with me. (golden-eyed face indeed?)< Captain Tabouli pauses, a frown congealing under her hat. While she is of course happy for her crew to take leave, she feels that Eileen's rationale is somewhat against the inclusive atmosphere she is trying to foster aboard LOLLIPOPS. As Captain, she secretly thinks Elkins' S.E.C.O.N.D. F.L.A.M.I.N.G.O... (Snape Eternally Covets Ogleworthy Norris' Damsel Form, Like Argus: Mrs "Inaccessible" Norris Generates Obsession!) ... deserves to be stripped and converted into pretty pink FEATHERBOAS, but then, she also secretly thinks that Pippin's LOVESLAVEs deserve to succumb to the deadly S.I.A.M.E.S.E. V.I.R.U.S... (Snape Is Already Mysterious Enough, So Extra Vampiricism Is Rendered Utterly Superfluous) ...along with all the other theories proclaiming *more* half-blood/unregistered Animagi. Perhaps when Eileen returns from the Big Bang Destroyer, she needs to have a little interview with her Captain about her attitudes. Nodding grimly to herself, Captain Tabouli signs the peace treaty with Elkins, and ascends once more to the deck of her Ship. Just as she is about to return to her desk chair, she overhears a comment made by a passenger: Cindy: > The truth, my friends, is that Florence is *Florence Norris*. (The name just rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it?) < Bristling, the Captain strides over to the storeroom, pulls out two recent on-board bulletins, and flourishes them in Cindy's sinful face. The first, published on the 17th of February, is entitled "The continuing twisted flight of Cupid's Snitch" and spells out a Filch/Florence romance in Great Detail. The second, published just *yesterday*, includes the following passage: "This tendency (towards compassion and nurturing) was instilled in Mrs Norris at birth in accordance with the Potterverse law of Name Determinism by her Muggle parents, who named her after that paragon of caring for others... Florence Nightingale." Shaking her head mutinously, Captain Tabouli heads once more for her deck chair when she is accosted by a woman who reminds her of the FLIRTIAC figurehead, somehow. She is wearing a badge with a picture of a small cat on it, on which is printed the legend: E.L.F. T.A.B.B.Y: Enough Love For Two! Alliance for Benevolent Bigamist Yearnings. Catlady (quoting Elkins): >> Forced to choose once more between these two paragons of masculine >> desirability [Filch and Snape], would Mrs. Norris make the same >> decision the *second* time >Why can't she have both? If everyone agrees that a woman can have two children and love both of them, why doesn't the same argument apply to two husbands?< (quoting me): >> "SNAPE LOVED **LILY**! >If Mrs. Norris can love two wizards, surely Snape can love two witches.< Captain Tabouli politely hears her case, promises to look into the foundation of an ELF TABBY common room on her Ship, and makes it to the deck chair. However, she has hardly got settled when another passenger approaches her. Eloise: > Can I just ask Captain Tabouli whether the comment in GoF (the Egg and the Eye) that Mrs Norris's lamp-like eyes are so very like those of her master has any bearing on what is going on in the FLIRTIAC dinghy?< Masking her weariness, Captain Tabouli considers. There are many possibilities. One easy out is that a new dinghy should be built to float alongside FLIRTIAC, perhaps A.C.I.D.A.R.T.I.C.L.E. (Argus' Cat Is Doubtless A Relative, Transported Into Cat Life Eternally). Another is the well known phenomenon of couples coming to look like each other after spending years together living the same lifestyle - both have developed lamp like eyes in their endless quest to bring students' antics to light, so to speak. Perhaps the resemblance is not so much that their eyes look alike, but that Mrs Norris' eyes look eerily human (for obvious reasons), and wear Filch's gleaming, haunted expression. However, perhaps the most interesting and strongest theory is one that came up months ago, which I don't know enough about to explain properly. There is apparently some legend which says that there are some wizards whose power is located not in them, but in their familiar. Hence Mrs Norris, who by proxy has become Filch's familiar, is in fact the vessel of his power, which will not be released for him to use again until she is returned to human form. By this theory, whoever cursed Mrs Norris also managed to leach Filch of his power and put it in the cat (which would neatly enable him to be the man snogging Florence Norris-to-be who hexed Bertha), and when Mrs Norris is healed, Filch will be the person who (re)develops magical powers late in life. Man and cat would therefore be linked by a strange, Dark Magic bond, lending them both an eerie, lamp-like cast to their eyes. Promising Eloise that she will try to come up with further theories on the subject, Captain Tabouli slumps into her chair and closes her eyes, but the babble of excited map theorists is too loud for her to sleep. With a sigh, she rises from her chair and limps towards her own cabin for some much-needed rest. Just when she is reaching for the doorknob, the same passenger as before seizes her arm. Cindy: >So I issue a challenge to those with competing Mrs. Norris theories: Explain exactly how it is that Mrs. Norris shows up that way on the Marauder's Map instead of showing up under her first and last name, like every other witch or wizard.< The Captain's head wobbles dizzily on her neck. Wordlessly, she groped in her pocket for yet another brochure, titled "Mrs Norris and Marauders' Map musings", published on the 16th of February, which is slightly out of date with current FLIRTIAC renovations, but can hopefully be tailored to fit. In a last husky whisper, she adds that we don't yet know how to interpret Lupin's avowal that "the Map never lies". What constitutes the "truth"? Voldemort is the most interesting example here: Boggles: > While I wonder about this too, the suggestion that it wouldn't show him _as Voldemort_ is intriguing. > >Fred: "Quick, get back in the broom closet! Quirrell's coming down >the charms corridor!" >George: "Who's this Tom Riddle he's got with him? Is he that >Hufflepuff fifth-year?" Dumbledore implies that "Tom Riddle" effectively no longer exists. He has put himself through so many transformation that "Lord Voldemort" has become his true nature and identity. Would it really be "true" for the Map to label him "Tom Riddle"? Arguably, Mrs Norris has also undergone a profound magical transformation, a change of her original nature and identity into that of a cat. Maybe she was nee Florence Figg, but is only ever spoken of and thought of in cat form as Mrs Norris (which Filch adheres to out of loverly irony, in their inability to forget the omnipresent shadow of her husband). Cindy looks sceptical, but thankfully, she does not press her question and ascends the ladder to the deck once more. Flaccid with relief, Captain Tabouli staggers into her cabin, locks the door behind her, and sags onto the bed, shakily pouring herself a flagon of rum. A Captain's work, she muses to herself as she sips, is truly never done. Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From saintbacchus at yahoo.com Wed Mar 13 03:29:00 2002 From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 03:29:00 -0000 Subject: Divination & Arithmancy, Malfoy & Pansy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36423 Porphyria writes: << Still the fact that it's taught at Hogwarts at all must be an indication of something. I suspect it's a little like the real world -- some individuals believe in it, but many don't. About a month ago in post #35373 Elkins suggested that there might be something problematic, Dark, or even corrupting about powerful divination, judging by Trelawney's flustered denial of her 2nd authentic prophecy, and the fact that it seemed to involve possession by a not-too-friendly spirit. >> I agree with what Elkins wrote. To be a "medium" involves opening oneself to spirits that may or may not be good. I imagine it's a rare person who can do that (either for metaphysical reasons or because it takes a certain frame of mind), and I also suspect it's nigh impossible to be unaffected by it. OTOH, if Divination really is a quack subject, then I believe that Dumbledore's reason for including it in the curriculum is to avoid students getting misconceptions about it. If they see it firsthand, they can decide for themselves whether it's real or not (hopefully, they'll choose correctly). If they only hear about it, they may get the wrong idea about its methodology and accuracy. Now I've got two questions: How much does Trelawney believe? She's such a charletan, I somehow can't see her buying into her own crap. Yet she's apparently spent years and years teaching it. What's the difference between Arithmancy and Divination? Hermione claims Arithmancy is somehow better, but numerology is really no more a predictor of the future than astrology or divination. Is Hermione - gasp! - just being dumb here? Mr. Boregard: << In GoF, Malfoy escorts Pansy Parkinson to the Yule Ball. You would think that a person of such lofty self worth would escort someone other than the hard faced Pansy. Are there any girls in the Slytherin house worthy of Malfoy's ideals or did he limit himself to the stock of Slytherin girls suitable to his personality? >> Maybe he was afraid of being turned down (I'm not talking in a squishy way, I mean afraid of losing face) and knew Pansy wouldn't. Malfoy strikes me as the kind of person who would put a lot of stock in looks. However, his *family* would put more stock in breeding. If Pansy is "pug-faced" but well-bred, he may just have felt he needed to do the right thing and go with her. In which case I also postulate that he got a big self-righteous kick out of it. --Anna From christi0469 at hotmail.com Wed Mar 13 03:59:24 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 03:59:24 -0000 Subject: All things green In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36424 You are all to find five green things > mentioned in the Harry Potter series. Points will be given for each > original item posted, and the House that gets the most points wins a > virtual trophy. You must quote the entire sentence that contains the > word green, the book it's from, edition (US or UK), and page number. > 1)"'You has to eat this, sir!' squeaked the elf, and he put his hand in the pocket of his shorts and drew out a ball of what looked like slimy, greenish-grey rat tails." GoF26, (US), 491HB 2)"He stretched out his hands in front of him and stared at them. They looked green and ghostly under the water, and they had become webbed." GoF26, (US), 494HB 3)"Light green weed stretched ahead of him as far as he could see, like a meadow of very overgrown grass." GoF26, (US), 495HB 4)"'Relashio!' Harry shouted, except that no sound came out....A large bubble issued from his mouth, and his wand, instead of sending sparks at the grindylows, pelted them with what seemed to be a jet of boiling water, for where it struck them, angry red patches appeared on their green skin." GoF26, (US), 496HB 5)"The merpeople had grayish skin and long, wild, dark green hair." GoF26, (US), 497HB The Sorting Hat put me in Gryffindor (it must have been high on something, but there you go). Christi From tanie_05 at hotmail.com Wed Mar 13 04:15:08 2002 From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 04:15:08 -0000 Subject: Avada Kedavra /Slytherins Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36425 Hi to all! OK, this is the first post I've made in a bit since I've literally been running around like a chicken with my head cut off. :) Several thoughts came up in my mind as of recently: Avada Kedavra: Why is this curse so bad? (Well, other than the fact that it kills people.) I mean all the other Unforgivable Curses violate a person in some way. Crucius Curse brings on unbearable amounts of pain, while Imperius Curse lets a wizard/witch control another's mind & activities. Maybe it steals souls...confused? Come on & take the journey with me. In GoF, we "see" Cedric killed by AK. But later on, due to Priori Incantem, we "see" him (and a host of others) again-- but in a ghost-like form. Maybe these aren't actually just "ghosts" of his AK's performed, but these people's actual souls. When the AK spell is performed, there is a flash of green light that comes out of the wand used. Maybe the light acts like a black hole of some sort & takes the person's soul right out of his/her body before they even hit the ground. Hmmm...IDK for sure. But hey, it's a start. Slytherins: Quick question: Are all Slytherins truly "evil"? Earlier toady, my friend Dana was at my house & took a test for a Sorting Hat, but she got sorted into Slytherin.(I got sorted into Ravenclaw. ;) Anyhoo...) Mind you, she's not a bad person, but she can be really determined & ambitious when she's working on something. Isn't that how Slytherins are supposed to be? Ambitious, hard-working? But back to my point, can kind people be placed in Slytherin? But then too, we don't have good models to go on, do we? (Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle, Voldie, etc.) Is everybody in Slytherin so mean and spiteful like Harry "shows" us? Please help a poor girl and her friend out. -Kyrstyne(who is reading her panicked friend's IM's of "Why Slytherin?!" & rolling her eyes) From uncmark at yahoo.com Wed Mar 13 04:17:52 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 04:17:52 -0000 Subject: Malfoy's Choice of Date In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36426 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Mr_Boregard" wrote: > In GoF, Malfoy escorts Pansy Parkinson to the Yule Ball. You would > think that a person of such lofty self worth would escort someone > other than the hard faced Pansy. Are there any girls in the Slytherin > house worthy of Malfoy's ideals or did he limit himself to the stock > of Slytherin girls suitable to his personality? > Why does he limit himself to Crabbe and Goyle? They are sons of Lucius's fellow DE's. I'm guessing that Pansy was also someone Draco has known for years. We can safely assume she was a pureblood. Was there a Parkinson in the Death Eaters? Uncmark From uncmark at yahoo.com Wed Mar 13 04:32:55 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 04:32:55 -0000 Subject: Malfoy's Choice of Date In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36427 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Mr_Boregard" wrote: > In GoF, Malfoy escorts Pansy Parkinson to the Yule Ball. You would > think that a person of such lofty self worth would escort someone > other than the hard faced Pansy. Are there any girls in the Slytherin > house worthy of Malfoy's ideals or did he limit himself to the stock > of Slytherin girls suitable to his personality? > Why does he limit himself to Crabbe and Goyle? They are sons of Lucius's fellow DE's. I'm guessing that Pansy was also someone Draco has known for years. We can safely assume she was a pureblood. Was there a Parkinson in the Death Eaters? Uncmark From saintbacchus at yahoo.com Wed Mar 13 05:47:50 2002 From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 05:47:50 -0000 Subject: More Divination and the House of Slytherin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36428 Tex writes: << This might explain why wizards are a little chary of divination -- Be careful what you predict! >> I think it's like: be careful what you predict, because you might make it happen. Harry's fear of the "Grim" almost killed him several times, but it wasn't the dog that was dangerous, only Harry's own fear of it. If Divination is widely believed to be real, that could cause all kinds of problems with self-fulfilling prophecies - especially if everyone subscribes to Trelawney's brand of prediction. Kyrstyne writes: << Mind you, she's not a bad person, but she can be really determined & ambitious when she's working on something. Isn't that how Slytherins are supposed to be? Ambitious, hard-working? But back to my point, can kind people be placed in Slytherin? >> Ambition isn't an inherently bad trait, it just lends itself to bad things. If ambition is your dominant trait, you might do anything to get what you want. If it's tempered by a sense of justice or empathy, you'll think twice. We've only seen Slytherin through the highly biased eyes of Harry and his Gryffindor pals (the same people who don't trust Snape even though he's saved Harry's life repeatedly). There's no reason to believe there aren't "borderline" Slytherins around who aren't ruled by their ambition. I will say that I think hard work is not a Slytherin trait. I just don't see it at all. Which is not to say that Slytherins are lazy, only that they're more inclined to find a quicker route to the goal; contrast with Hufflepuffs, who take the straightforward path in a straightforward manner, even if it's slower. They have no ambition driving them. I guess I really have no proof of this, it just seems to go with the way the houses are described. Thoughts? --Anna From boggles at earthlink.net Wed Mar 13 06:17:40 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 00:17:40 -0600 Subject: Slytherins, and Draco's Date In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36429 At 4:15 AM +0000 3/13/02, tanie_05 wrote: > >Slytherins: >Quick question: Are all Slytherins truly "evil"? I certainly don't think so. Here's a quote written at the age of fourteen (which explains the run-on) by a person of, if not pure blood, at least blue-blood: "Those who are ambitious and make a place and a name in the great world for themselves are nearly always despised and laughed at by lesser souls who could not do as well and all they do for the good of men is construed into wrong, and yet they do the good and they leave their mark upon the ages and if they had no ambition would they ever have made a mark?" A Slytherin statement if ever I saw one. Salazar would be proud. Any doubt ehere thid person would be sorted? Guess who wrote the quote? . . . Time's up! Eleanor Roosevelt. Hardly evil, at least to my way of thinking. >But back to my point, >can kind people be placed in Slytherin? As long as they're ambitious, and (more to the point) their ambition outweighs their scholarship, loyalty and hard work, and bravery, then the Sorting Hat's song tells us that's where he'd put them. No cruelty required. (Whether the Hat also considers whether the person is Muggle-born is unknown - if it does, it fails to mention it in either of the songs we hear.) At 9:48 PM +0000 3/12/02, Mr_Boregard wrote: >In GoF, Malfoy escorts Pansy Parkinson to the Yule Ball. You would >think that a person of such lofty self worth would escort someone >other than the hard faced Pansy. Are there any girls in the Slytherin >house worthy of Malfoy's ideals or did he limit himself to the stock >of Slytherin girls suitable to his personality? At least one Slytherin seems to show compassion fairly regularly, at least for her fellow Slytherins, and Draco in particular - Pansy Parkinson. The most obvious case is in PoA 6, when Pansy is in tears after Draco gets gashed by Buckbeak and is the only person other than Hagrid to go to the infirmary with him. She continues to dote on him throughout his injury. After all that, Draco could be pretty sure that if he asked her, she wouldn't say no. She's a fellow Slytherin, she's presumably from a good family, and the only other Slytherin girl in her year we have a physical description for (as far as I can find), Millicent Bulstrode, is even less pretty. Asking someone from another house would be risky, so barring there being a pretty Durmstrang girl, she's a decent enough catch for something like the Yule Ball. -- - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon boggles at earthlink.net === Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 === GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+ c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+ ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U! From lmccabe at sonic.net Wed Mar 13 05:45:11 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (linda_mccabe) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 05:45:11 -0000 Subject: Animagus Vulnerabilities (Was:Rita Skeeter Ever So Evil??) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36430 Caroline Flowers wrote: Hermione's ban on scandal-mongering in the press. Ripe time to sell her skills to Voldy, I'd say. (Oh, good! Rita Skeeter is Ever so Evil!) I worry about Rita too... She saw Sirius transform, right? And *everything* that went on between Fudge & Dumbledore in the hospital room? I don't know about Ever So Evil, but I think Ever So Opportunistic would be a great label for her... And then Tex wrote: Yes, the one-year ban sounds more plot-driven than character- driven. McG has taught the Griffs how to transfigure beetles into buttons. So why didn't Herme-OWN-ni-ni turn Ms Skeeter into a button, and feed her to a passing owl? Tex Ever So Creative Athena: This brings up a couple things I've been thinking about. One, I hope that Hermione comes to her senses and sends an owl post to Dumbledore and tells him about Rita Skeeter's violations of Hogwart's policy and her devious "beetle on the wall" deceptions to get unauthorized information. I'm sure that Dumbledore will know how best to deal with her. Otherwise, should Hermione just let her out - then Snape's history as a Death Eater turned spy and Sirius being friends with Dumbledore and a shaggy black dog animagus cover will be blown. That's just too much info to trust with Rita behaving herself with a threat of having her own unregistered animagus info being blown. And as for Skeeter being turned into a button - I've been wondering something else along similar lines. I searched the archives to see if anyone else had thought this, but didn't come up with anything close. Let's just suppose that if you cannot determine what animal you'd like to become and it has something to do with your innate talents - and according to canon your animagus self also allows you to converse with similar creatures (Pettigrew talking with rats, Sirius with cats or Kneazles) then wouldn't you assume that since Harry is a parseltongue that if he became an Animagus that he would become a glorious green-eyed snake? Here's my question: If Harry were an Animagus snake and came upon Wormtail in his Animagus rat form, what would happen if Harry swallowed the rat whole? Would the enchanted rat be digested in the snake like a real rat? Or could Wormtail transform back into his wizard self and blow a hole through Harry's snake belly? Or what if it could be like Greek Mythology and have Harry be able to just keep Peter trapped in his belly until he takes some epicac and throws up the rat. You know - conveniently in front of Ministry of Magic officials to then help clear his long suffering Godfather Sirius. Just trying to imagine some of the creative plot twists that are awaiting us in the next three books. Athena From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Wed Mar 13 09:44:41 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:44:41 -0000 Subject: Prejudices (was Malfoy's Choice of Date) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36431 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nyarth_meow" wrote: > And while all wizards who've gone bad are Slytherins (According to > Hagrid in PS), Hagrid also says in GOF that you can't trust any foriegner. Actually JKR stated in some chat or the other that that comment by Hagrid was just typical house prejudice. From Edblanning at aol.com Wed Mar 13 10:31:27 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 05:31:27 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] All things green/Slytherins Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36432 Just a rider, ( I don't know how strict Dicentra is), to say that all my examples were from the UK paperback editions. (I sort of implied withthe first one that they were UK, but...) Isn't it amazing that so far there's been hardly any overlap (has there been any at all?) I wonder what would happen if we tried this with any other colour. Now, where are the Hufflepuffs and the Slytherins? Kyrstyne: >Slytherins: >Quick question: Are all Slytherins truly "evil"? Earlier toady, my >friend Dana was at my house & took a test for a Sorting Hat, but she >got sorted into Slytherin.(I got sorted into Ravenclaw. ;) Anyhoo...) >Mind you, she's not a bad person, but she can be really determined & >ambitious when she's working on something. Isn't that how Slytherins >are supposed to be? Ambitious, hard-working? But back to my point, >can kind people be placed in Slytherin? But then too, we don't have >good models to go on, do we? (Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle, Voldie, etc.) Is >everybody in Slytherin so mean and spiteful like Harry "shows" us? >Please help a poor girl and her friend out. I think it is against the spirit of canon to categorise Slytherins as being intrinsically evil, on the basis that it is the choices you make that are important rather than what you are. OTOH, we get into a bit of chicken and egg situation here. Is one sorted into Slytherin as a result of the choices already made, or is one essentially born a Slytherin, so that the types of choice made are basically determined by character. Determinism vs free will, again. I'm not a philosopher, so I'll stop there. If we dicount Voldy, who presumably isn't a typical Slytherin, I suppose we have to take Snape as the only example of a Slytherin whose character has been in any way developed, in contrast to the sketchy, stereotypical portrayal of the students (whom of course, we only see from the prejudiced viewpoint of the Gryffindors). So the question is, do you regard Snape as evil? (Answers on a postcard, please!) One of the most worrying things about Slytherins if the Sorting Hat is to be believed (and it sorts them, so I suppose we have to) is in the first Sorting Hat song: it says that they will use *any* means to achieve their ends. In my book, that goes beyond mere determination and ambition, but implies a lack of ethics that I'm sure doesn't apply to your friend! Please remember that what you used isn't the *real* Sorting Hat and that it can't really see inside your head. After all, it sorted me into Gryffindor, and I'm sure I really ought to be a Ravenclaw (me and the rest of this list, it seems!) Eloise Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ameliagoldfeesh at yahoo.com Wed Mar 13 10:43:03 2002 From: ameliagoldfeesh at yahoo.com (ameliagoldfeesh) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:43:03 -0000 Subject: All things green Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36433 >You are all to find five green things mentioned in the Harry Potter series. All are from the US hardback edition of Chamber of Secrets. 1- "Stand back," said Lockhart, who was rolling up his jade-green sleeves. P. 173 2- Neville Longbottom bought a large, evil-smelling green onion, a pointed purple crystal, and a rotting newt tail before the other Gryffindor boys pointed out he was in no danger; he was a pure-blood, and therefore unlikely to be attacked. P. 185 3- The Slytherin common room was a long, low underground room with rough stone walls and ceiling from which round, greenish lamps were hanging on chains. P. 221 4- His eyes are as green as a fresh pickled toad, His hair is as dark as a blackboard. I wish he was mine, he's really divine, The here who conquered the Dark Lord. P.238 5- Robes, jade-green, lilac, midnight-blue, had been hastily folded into one of them; books were jumbled untidily into the other. P. 296 A Goldfeesh -who wonders at the Sorting Hat putting her in Slytherin, not being too ambitious or cunning and so likely destined to be a lowly sycophant... He saw an animal as smooth as glass Slithering his way through the grass. Saw him disappear by a tree near a lake . . . Dylan, "Man Gave Names to All the Animals (the next, though unsung, line logically being: "Ah, think I'll call it a snake.") From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Mar 13 11:26:46 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:26:46 -0000 Subject: Prejudices (was Malfoy's Choice of Date) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36434 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nyarth_meow" wrote: > > And while all wizards who've gone bad are Slytherins (According to > > Hagrid in PS), > > Hagrid also says in GOF that you can't trust any foriegner. > > Actually JKR stated in some chat or the other that that comment by > Hagrid was just typical house prejudice. In fact, we know Hagrid was talking crap, since at the time he said this, Sirius Black, Gryffindor stud-muffin extraordinaire, was sitting in Azkaban with the whole wizarding world (including Hagrid) believing that he was Voldemort's best buddy. And even after it turned out that Sirius is innocent, the guilty party was yet another Gryffindor. So we *know* not all the wizards who went bad are Slytherins. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From abigailnus at yahoo.com Wed Mar 13 12:28:26 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:28:26 -0000 Subject: Snape/Lucius Malfoy/Filch connections In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36435 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: But when I > started working on time-lines and Malfoy family history and > genealogy, it seemed to me that ages and circumstances are right for > Lucius to be Riddle/Voldemort's godson; Lucius's extreme evilness > could be due to Riddle/Voldemort having been a major influence on his > upbringing. Hmmm. I'm not sure that works. I've been operating under the assumption that Lucius' closeness with Voldemort has to do with the fact that he was in fact in LV's original inner circle (you know, the one that knew him as Lord Voldemort when he was still in school.) The timeline works, Draco clearly states in CoS that his father was in school when the Chamber of Secrets was first opened - when Tom Riddle was in his sixth year. Lucius would therefore be around Tom's age, give or take a few years, and would indeed be an old friend. I've drawn from this, by the way, the assumption that Lucius Malfoy was in fact a mentor or some sort to young Severus Snape, either before or after he joined the DE, and that this is one of Snape's reasons for treating Malfoy so favourably. By the way, as long a we're on the subject of Snape's friends, I noticed someone wondering what the reason for Snape and Filch's apparent friendship is (this is a small point in the FLIRTIAC campaign.) I started wondering whether the reason wasn't the same as the one for Harry's closeness with Hagrid. We don't know how old Filch is and it's possible that he was caretaker while Snape was in school, and they may have been on good terms. Maybe Snape didn't break the rules a lot, or maybe he was a squealer, or for whatever reason - maybe like just attracts like. Not as sexy as the FLIRTIAC/Kittygro/Love Triangle solutions, but it makes a kind of sense to me. Abigail From heidit at netbox.com Wed Mar 13 13:13:54 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:13:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape/Lucius Malfoy/Filch connections In-Reply-To: 43 Message-ID: <16600678.162701493@imcingular.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36436 Abigail wrote: ***The timeline works, Draco clearly states in CoS that his father was in school when the Chamber of Secrets was first opened - when Tom Riddle was in his sixth year. Lucius would therefore be around Tom's age, give or take a few years, and would indeed be an old friend.*** Actually (us paperback of CoS, p 223) Draco says that the last time the Chamber was opened was "before his [Lucius'] time." If Lucius started at Hogwarts in 1950, he still would've b een after Riddle's time yet old enough to mentor Snape. If Lucius was even a bit younger and, say, born in 44, he'd've been young enough to, say, have Riddle as a tutor before he started at Hogwarts- that would've given Riddle a lot of influence over him - and he'd still be old enough, given the Malfoy wealth and position, to be a patron and mentor, at, say, 33, to the recently-left-Hogwarts Severus Snape. Heidi Tandy Follow me to FictionAlley - Harry Potter fanfics of all shapes, sizes and ships - 7 sickles an ounce http://www.FictionAlley.org From Ali at zymurgy.org Wed Mar 13 13:20:24 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:20:24 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Upkeep In-Reply-To: <001f01c1ca07$111ed660$149abc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36437 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Felicia Rickmann" wrote: > >> Where does Hogwarts get its > >> funds to continue running at all, let alone at the level of decadence that it apparently does? > > I always, for reasons I can't explain but perhaps being English helps, assumed that Hogwarts was a fee-paying school probably because it was a boarding school. I know I nearly went to one once, but fled to Holland instead... It would have involved, according to my Mum, large amounts of cash changing hands. > > It all costs money and, as the wizarding world is NOT huge, I doubt if public wizard money could fund it. Assistance with places would, as it is in various forms with muggles, be available, but the necessity for fee-payments would account in no small part for the Weasley's impoverished situation. (Very, very proud to have the family at Hogwarts, but forever counting the sickles & knuts to keep them there....) > > Felicia I'm English, and I've always assumed that Hogwarts is not a fee- paying school! I think that Hogwarts has to be "state" funded as it seems to be the only wizarding school in the UK. I can't believe that it would be in the interest of either the wizarding community - or the Muggle community - to have untrained wizards going about blowing up aunts etc. The community needs a school to ensure that the wizarding powers that these children possess are trained and directed. There is no canon evidence to support the theory that fees change hands (ok, so there's nothing to contradict it either). I think that the Weasleys are poor because Mr Weasley is not very senior in the MOM. He may run a department, but as it only has 2 employees, it's not very big and presumably doesn't attract the same sort of salary that a larger department might have. The Weasleys also have loads of children -which is very expensive. We've only got 2 and we're broke! Why would Muggle parents led their children go to a strange wizarding school (I suppose that's a question in itself) and pay for the privilege? The father of the little Creevey brothers is a milkman and not likely to have the money to send his sons to boarding school. I know the argument that some children might be given scholarships or bursarys of some kind, but again there is no mention of this. I believe that the children of Hogwarts are there on merit, and merit alone. All children in the UK have a right to free education, and perhaps by extension, all wizarding children in Britain have a right to a free wizarding education. The fact that it is in a boarding school is simply for practical reasons: there are not sufficent children with wizarding abilities to have loads of schools dotted around the country. Therefore, a boarding school is the only option. Despite the smallness of the wizarding community, the community would pay for the costs of funding the school, as the costs of not funding such an education could be greater. ie wizarding children running amok and risking exposure to the Muggle population. I'm happy to have my theory picked at, as canon doesn't really help here. Ali From alexpie at aol.com Wed Mar 13 14:41:56 2002 From: alexpie at aol.com (alexpie at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:41:56 EST Subject: Where is the Sorting Hat? Message-ID: <69.238ca8de.29c0bf34@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36438 I've got my green citations at the ready, but am wandering around houseless. I know that there are a number of sorting hats online, but I want to use the appropriate one. Ba, hoping for Ravenclaw [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com Wed Mar 13 14:47:13 2002 From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:47:13 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Prejudices (was Malfoy's Choice of Date) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36439 >From: "marinafrants" >In fact, we know Hagrid was talking crap, since at the time he said >this, Sirius Black, Gryffindor stud-muffin extraordinaire, was >sitting in Azkaban with the whole wizarding world (including Hagrid) >believing that he was Voldemort's best buddy. And even after it >turned out that Sirius is innocent, the guilty party was yet another >Gryffindor. So we *know* not all the wizards who went bad are >Slytherins. Yes, we know that he was discounting Black or eventually Pettigrew, but do we know the *why*? Was he simply applying house prejudice, being a Gryffindor himself before getting the boot? Or was it simply that Hagrid had no desire to tell Harry "Oh, yes, there was one non-Slytherin that went bad, your godfather, the one that betrayed your parents..." Seems a bit harsh if you ask me, to drop that on a young boy without much warning. J _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Mar 13 15:07:53 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 15:07:53 -0000 Subject: Prejudices (was Malfoy's Choice of Date) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36440 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jake Storm" wrote: > Yes, we know that he was discounting Black or eventually Pettigrew, but do > we know the *why*? Was he simply applying house prejudice, being a > Gryffindor himself before getting the boot? Or was it simply that Hagrid had > no desire to tell Harry "Oh, yes, there was one non-Slytherin that went bad, > your godfather, the one that betrayed your parents..." Seems a bit harsh if > you ask me, to drop that on a young boy without much warning. I agree, telling Harry about Black at the time would've been a Bad Thing. But given Hagrid's tendency to blurt out things that shouldn't be blurted out, as well as the fact that his mental processes are... uhm... uncomplicated, I doubt that was the reason he told Harry that all evil wizards came from Slytherin. I think he just didn't think about Black when he made that statement. Mind you, I don't believe for a moment that there weren't other non-Slytherins working for Voldemort; but if the vast majority of his supporters were Slytherins, I suspect most people, even more discerning ones than Hagrid, would find it easy to dismiss any exceptions that didn't fit their nicely arranged prejudices. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From Edblanning at aol.com Wed Mar 13 15:24:23 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:24:23 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape/Lucius Malfoy/Filch connections Message-ID: <115.e07b518.29c0c927@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36441 Abigail: > Hmmm. I'm not sure that works. I've been operating under the assumption > that Lucius' closeness with Voldemort has > to do with the fact that he was in fact in LV's original inner circle (you > know, the one that knew him as Lord Voldemort > when he was still in school.) The timeline works, Draco clearly states in > CoS that his father was in school when the > Chamber of Secrets was first opened - when Tom Riddle was in his sixth > year. Lucius would therefore be around > That was something I felt inspired to check yesterday, and actually, Draco says the opposite: the Chamber was opened *before* his father's time. > I've drawn from this, by the way, the assumption that Lucius Malfoy was in > fact a mentor or some sort to young > Severus Snape, either before or after he joined the DE, and that this is > one of Snape's reasons for treating Malfoy so > On the other hand I do in my own mind sort of assume that perhaps the Malfoys and the Snapes did know each other (no evidence, just a gut feeling). He would, of course have been an older DE who *could* have mentored Snape, but I also feel that Snape is ambivalent about Lucius' DE/nonDE status prior to it being revealed at the end of GoF ( BTW, isn't Snape's 'sudden movement' when he hears that an indication that he *wasn't* in the graveyard as some have recently speculated?). I feel he plays a cautious game with Mr Malfoy, erring on the side of caution. OTOH, if Draco is correct in stating that his father would favour Snape for the headmastership, I think we can reasonably assume that Lucius, at least, believes that Snape's sympathies still lie with the Dark Side. > By the way, as long a we're on the subject of Snape's friends, I noticed > someone wondering what the reason for > Snape and Filch's apparent friendship is (this is a small point in the > FLIRTIAC campaign.) I started wondering whether > the reason wasn't the same as the one for Harry's closeness with Hagrid. > We don't know how old Filch is and it's > possible that he was caretaker while Snape was in school, and they may have > been on good terms. Maybe Snape > didn't break the rules a lot, or maybe he was a squealer, or for whatever > reason - maybe like just attracts like. Not as > sexy as the FLIRTIAC/Kittygro/Love Triangle solutions, but it makes a kind > of sense to me. Oh yes....I think young Severus was responsible for handing Filch a lot of victims (good practice for later Bloody Ambushes, if he did but know!). (I wonder when Filch had to stop using those manacles.) I think he basically sees in Snape an ally - the only ally, perhaps - in his unremitting war against those pestilential nuisances the students. I'm sure thay'd both enjoy life better without them. Shame they both have to work in a school! Back on the subject of Slytherin, one of the characteristics favoured by Slytherin himself (according to Dumbledore) was a certain lack of respect for rules. Not a characterisic of Snape, apparently (other than going out of bounds to follow Lupin). Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ruben at satec.es Wed Mar 13 15:55:19 2002 From: ruben at satec.es (ruben at satec.es) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:55:19 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Divination In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003901c1caa7$7a4cfea0$a920a4d5@satec.es> No: HPFGUIDX 36442 Yesterday, Morgan asked: > Throughout the canon, various characters (Harry, Ron, Dumbledore, > Hermione, et al) express suspicion towards divination. Do you think > the wizarding world at large thinks divination is imprecise and > untrustworthy, or just our heroes? I think there's value in divination, but it must be an extremely rare gift. Obviouly Trelawney has the Sight, as she has made at least one real prediction we know of (two according to Dumbledore). Now think if you were Trelawney... you'd start looking for signs everywhere after your first prediction which *felt* true. You'd have no way to tell a good prediction from a bad one beforehand, and would become more and more frustrated as most of them went bad. Then again, some of them would turn out good (coincidence if nothing else). We don't really know if this is Trelawney's own shortcoming, or a more general problem with Divination. That would make a lot of sense to me: if divination was 100% reliable, the world would be very different. The Potterverse we know might not be at all possible. So let's assume a high rate of failure is something to be expected. So, why does Dumbledore keep her, when it's clear she's not very reliable? (whether her fault or not, she's certainly not reliable - and not particularly bright either). Because she *can* do a prediction, and because that prediction *may* be an important one. And because any potential Seer among the students would be a significant asset in the fight to come, and he must make sure these are spotted. Grated, Miss T isn't doing a great job of it, but hey, she's all he has to work with. If the Gryffindor heir theory is true, then he has another reason to keep her around. Who knows when she might turn up with another significant piece of information? Would things have been different if everyone had paid heed to her real prediction in GoF? Of course, it was too late, and there was the "cry wolf" effect too... but I think everyone (Harry particularly) will become more attentive to her predictions in the future, just in case. All that said, it's possible that Dumbledore would rather have someone else for Divination classes, if only he'd found a better candidate. He just didn't find one, what with true Seers being scarce, and Divination itself such a murky discipline. Cheers Elirtai From bonnie at niche-associates.com Wed Mar 13 15:58:57 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 15:58:57 -0000 Subject: All things green tally Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36443 As of 13 Mar 02 9:00am -0700 (Mountain Standard Time) 30 to Gryffindor 20 to Ravenclaw 5 to Slytherin 0 to Hufflepuff C'mon Slyths! Where's your ambition? And where are those hard-working Hufflepuffs? To repeat the assignment, find five occurences of the word "green" in the HP books, citing book, page, UK or US edition and the entire sentence in which "green" appears. Look back to other "All things green" posts to see what's already been done so you don't repeat. --Dicentra, who answers Eloise's questions by saying "not yet" and "it would be much harder, especially with periwinkle" From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Mar 13 16:03:30 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:03:30 -0000 Subject: Snape/Lucius Malfoy/Filch connections In-Reply-To: <115.e07b518.29c0c927@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36444 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > Back on the subject of Slytherin, one of the characteristics favoured by > Slytherin himself (according to Dumbledore) was a certain lack of respect for > rules. Not a characterisic of Snape, apparently (other than going out of > bounds to follow Lupin). I'm sure becoming a Death Eater broke a rule somewhere. I suspect Snape's current obsession with rule-following is a bit of overcompensation. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Wed Mar 13 16:28:13 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:28:13 -0000 Subject: If Its Draco's (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36445 Sketched this during a boring meeting this a.m.: If It's Draco's (to the tune of Anything Goes) Dedicated to Dicentra THE SCENE: Gryffindor Common Area. Enter the TRIO TRIO The golden boy of Malfoy Manor Had better bring down his banner For we'll oppose If is Draco's. The Prince of Darkness (like Bob Novak) Is soon gonna get some blowback >From his foes Him we oppose! At his mere sight, we troth, We are waxing wroth Every sin but sloth We grant to that Goth Garbed in sheer black cloth Someone get a moth That likes to nibble clothes Draco Malfoy has now found his niche In the dark side of Richie Rich. Let's juxtapose Their dual bios - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (updated 3/12/02 with 24 new filks) From Alyeskakc at aol.com Wed Mar 13 16:33:47 2002 From: Alyeskakc at aol.com (alyeskakc) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:33:47 -0000 Subject: FILK: If I Had 1,000,000 Galleons Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36446 *delurks* Hi all I thought I share my littke filk with you all. It's based on the Barenaked Ladies song "If I Had $1,000,000." Hope it gives you a bit of a giggle. Enjoy! Kristin SCENE: Ron singing to Hermione and Harry in the Gryffindor common room late one night. If I Had 1,000,000 Galleons By Not BNL If I had 1,000,000 galleons (If I had 1,000,000 galleons) I'd buy you a castle (I would buy you a castle) If I had 1,000,000 galleons (If I had 1,000,000 galleons) I'd buy you furniture for your castle (Maybe a nice chesterfield or an ottoman) If I had 1,000,000 galleons (If I had 1,000,000 galleons) I'd buy you a Firebolt (a nice Reliant racing broom) If I had 1,000,000 galleons, I'd buy your love. If I had 1,000,000 galleons, I'd build a tree fort in our yard If I had 1,000,000 galleons, You could help, it wouldn't be that hard If I had 1,000,000 galleons, Maybe we could put a refrigerator in there, wouldn't that be fabulous If I had 1,000,000 galleons (If I had 1,000,000 galleons) I'd buy you a fur coat (but not a real fur coat that's cruel) If I had 1,000,000 galleons (If I had 1,000,000 galleons) I'd buy you an exotic pet (Like a fairy or a hippogriff) If I had 1,000,000 galleons (if I had 1,000,000 galleons) I'd buy you You-Know-Who's remains (All them crazy snaky bones) If I had 1,000,000 galleons, I'd buy your love. If I had 1,000,000 galleons, we wouldn't have to walk to the Diagon Alley If I had 1,000,000 galleons, we'd take a limousine 'cause it costs more. If I had 1,000,000 galleons We wouldn't have to eat Kraft Dinner. But we would. (Just more of it) We'd actually make the tree fort from the first chorus out of it. Mmm. If I had 1,000,000 galleons (If I had 1,000,000 galleons) I'd buy you a Green Cloak (but not a real Green Cloak, that's cruel) If I had 1,000,000 galleons (If I had 1,000,000 galleons) I'd buy you some art (a Picasso or a Dumbledore) If I had 1,000,000 galleons (If I had 1,000,000 galleons) I'd buy you a dragon (haven't you always wanted a dragon?) If I had, 1,000,000 galleons, If I had 1,000,000 galleons If I had, 1,000,000 galleons If I had 1,000,000 galleons, I'd be rich. From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com Wed Mar 13 16:40:33 2002 From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:40:33 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Divination Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36447 >From: ruben at satec.es >So, why does Dumbledore keep [Trelawney], when it's clear she's not very >reliable? >(whether her fault or not, she's certainly not reliable - and not >particularly bright either). Could it have something to do with that first, 'real' (though not necessarily true, everyone seems to miss that Dumbledore refers to a 'real' prediction, but never says that it was a 'true' one) prediction she made. Maybe she's at Hogwarts because, if the Dark Lord or his minions could get ahold of her, they'd try to use her to figure out a way to ensure victory for their side? Or even just get revenge for having predicted, succesfully, the downfall of Voldemort? J _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From saramull at optonline.net Wed Mar 13 16:43:14 2002 From: saramull at optonline.net (sarah28962000) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:43:14 -0000 Subject: Malfoy's Choice of Date In-Reply-To: <007c01c1ca23$63ba3ba0$db21b0d8@kerelsen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36448 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Bernadette M. Crumb" wrote: > And just because Pansy is described as "hard faced" doesn't mean > that she isn't pretty or even beautiful. I've seen people who I > could easily describe as a "hard beauty." Their features are > exquisite, but the expression on them lessens the prettiness. > Yes, but I believe elsewhere she is described as having a face like a pug. Not that there's anything wrong with pugs... Sarah From ruben at satec.es Wed Mar 13 17:19:04 2002 From: ruben at satec.es (ruben at satec.es) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:19:04 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Divination In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003f01c1cab3$2d934ef0$a920a4d5@satec.es> No: HPFGUIDX 36449 To my musings about why Dumbledore kept Trelawney, Jake Storm answered: > > Could it have something to do with that first, 'real' (though not > necessarily true, everyone seems to miss that Dumbledore > refers to a 'real' prediction, but never says that it was a 'true' one) > prediction she made. Yes, that's what I meant by the Gryffindor heir theory (most versions of that theory rely heavily on speculations about the first prediction). Your point about 'real' not being the same as 'true' is well spotted, though. Not that it matters, if the prophecy predicts the downfall of Voldemort: when Dumblodore knows whether it's true it will probably be too late to do anything about it. He also said: > Maybe she's at Hogwarts because, if the Dark Lord or his minions could get > ahold of her, they'd try to use her to figure out a way to ensure victory > for their side? Or even just get revenge for having predicted, succesfully, > the downfall of Voldemort? Hmm, that's an interesting new twist... But not just revenge: since he obviously gives the prophecy some credit (he's going after the Potters after all), he would want to keep her around in case he can learn something else. More importantly so, so she wouldn't disclose any important information to his enemies. Same motives as Dumbledore's, actually. Heh, maybe getting hold of Trelawney is the key to winning the final battle - no wonder she sounds a bit off her hinges, so many important things depend on her! Just kidding, of course. Bye, Elirtai From uncmark at yahoo.com Wed Mar 13 17:53:35 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:53:35 -0000 Subject: Prejudices (was Malfoy's Choice of Date) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36450 In HPforGrownups at y..., "nyarth_meow" wrote: > > > (According to Hagrid in PS), All wizards who've gone bad are Slytherins "marinafrants" wrote: > In fact, we know Hagrid was talking crap, since at the time he said > this, Sirius Black, Gryffindor stud-muffin extraordinaire, was > sitting in Azkaban with the whole wizarding world (including > Hagrid) believing that he was Voldemort's best buddy. And even > after it turned out that Sirius is innocent, the guilty party was > yet another Gryffindor. So we *know* not all the wizards who went > bad are Slytherins. I think Hagrid (just as the HRH trio) grew a lot in the 4 Potter books. He probably believed his comment when he said this, but this was in the beginning of book 1. At the time he was an isolative gamekeeper who probably talked to giant spiders more than people. Much of the Voldemort history is unknown as few are brave enough to speak his name. Likewise it may have been decided to never mention Sirius around Harry to shield him. "prefectmarcus" wrote: > > Hagrid also says in GOF that you can't trust any foriegner. > > Actually JKR stated in some chat or the other that that comment > > by Hagrid was just typical house prejudice. I believe he was mad at Olympe maxime at the time, but by the end of GoF I'm pretty sure he changed his mind about her. The most untrustworthy characters in the Potterverse seem to be native borne Brits (Crouch, Pettigrew, Malfoy Sr.) and Krum probably surprized all the readers by turning out sincere and trusrtworthy at the end. I think all the characters learned a lot about prejudice in GofF. I'd like to see how Snape and Sirius change after the uneasy detente imposed by Dumbledore. Can't wqait for Book 5 Uncmark From lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 13 18:10:28 2002 From: lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com (Ms Lizard Gizzard) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:10:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron's 'sight' In-Reply-To: <3C8E995A.AB2A2592@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: <20020313181028.24364.qmail@web13501.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36451 --- Katze wrote: > My personal opinion is that Ron is a true Seer. I > know there are lots of folks on the list who > disagree. > Ron seems to have a knack (whether he's taking > his class seriously or not) to predict > certain outcomes in the future. It's not that I disagree, but could you offer some evidence? I haven't seen any sign that Ron has any talent in divination. But then, I haven't really studied it. Liz Giz __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From liquidfire at mindgate.net Wed Mar 13 18:27:43 2002 From: liquidfire at mindgate.net (Liquidfire) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 02:27:43 +0800 Subject: Unsubscribe me In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20020314022743.007b9410@mindgate.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36452 Sorry, if there are any moderators around, please unsubscribe me from this egroup. From lterrellgiii at icqmail.com Wed Mar 13 17:49:57 2002 From: lterrellgiii at icqmail.com (L. Terrell Gould, III) Date: 13 Mar 2002 09:49:57 -0800 Subject: DE Name Origin Message-ID: <20020313174957.6963.cpmta@c012.snv.cp.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36453 An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From eleri at aracnet.com Wed Mar 13 15:34:39 2002 From: eleri at aracnet.com (CB) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:34:39 -0500 Subject: Slytherins evil In-Reply-To: <1016018811.3075.16333.m6@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020313102429.00b8a2a0@mail.aracnet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36454 I don't think people finding themselves sorted into Slytherin are inherently evil. Ambitious, possibly ruthless, yes, but not *evil*. I do think, however, that the qualities that make a cannon Slytherin, also make it far easier for them to become evil. The line between good and evil for them is very blurred, and what starts out as a driving ambition, with little thought to the consequences, quickly becomes evil acts. Charlene (out of Deep Lurkitude) From abigailnus at yahoo.com Wed Mar 13 19:35:26 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:35:26 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Upkeep (or Hogwarts, a Financial History) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36455 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Felicia Rickmann" > wrote: > > >> Where does Hogwarts get its > > >> funds to continue running at all, let alone at the level of > decadence that it apparently does? > I'm English, and I've always assumed that Hogwarts is not a fee- > paying school! > > I think that Hogwarts has to be "state" funded as it seems to be the > only wizarding school in the UK. I can't believe that it would be in > the interest of either the wizarding community - or the Muggle > community - to have untrained wizards going about blowing up aunts > etc. The community needs a school to ensure that the wizarding powers > that these children possess are trained and directed. There is no > canon evidence to support the theory that fees change hands (ok, so > there's nothing to contradict it either). Well, you'd think after flying directly in the face of canon (see my not-yet- 12-hours-old post on whether Lucius Malfoy was at school with LV) I'd be a bit timid about posting. Luckily, this question has almost no grounding in canon and so the potential for embarassing myself is low (ah! A challenge!). Nevertheless, any person reading this post does so at his or her own risk and with the full understanding that the information contained herein may be (1) wrong (2) silly (3) very wrong and very silly or (4) the secret to life, the universe and everything which will make your brain shut down and ooze out of your ears. You have been warned. Now, the only mention of money changing hands for the purpose of *attending* Hogwarts (I'm not talking about supplies such as books and uniforms but strictly tuition) is made in PS when Uncle Vernon announces that "[he] is not paying any money for some crack-pot old fool to teach [Harry] magic tricks!" However, I subscribe to the school of thought that hold that Uncle Vernon Doesn't Know Jack and taking any opinion of his with regards to the magic community at any level of seriousness is not unlike assuming that all dark wizards came from Slytherin because Hagrid said so. There has been no other mention of tuition, period. Ali makes some good points for Hogwarts being a "state" school and therefore not requiring an attendance fee. My only problem with this is that Hogwarts is *old*. The sorting hat song from GoF states that it was created "a thousand years or more ago" and Professor Binns says something to that effect in CoS. There wasn't even an England a thousand years ago, much less a national government - are we to assume that wizards were so ahead of muggles in the field of centralized government that they were able to arrange for public education for their children? I suppose it's not out of the realm of possibility, but it doesn't make much sense (although I suppose it is possible that Hogwarts was "nationalised" at some point in the past 1000 years.) The impression I got of the formation of Hogwarts was that it was a private venture by four wizards. The very idea of a centralised place of learning would have been very new in the 9th-10th centuries (I'm on shaky ground here - I believe Oxford and the Sorbonne didn't exist yet, yes?) Education was the privilege of the rich, who hired tutors for their children, and the centers of learning were the religious centers. Since there is no religion to speak of in Potterverse, it makes sense that a center of magical learning would be formed by gifted wizards. The four founders apparently sought out gifted youngsters and instructed them in the magical arts - an indication that prior to the school's creation, young wizards were either taught by their families, or in the apprentice-journeyman-master system, or perhaps never learned properly how to control their power. Hogwarts is therefore more than an institution - it's a small city. From its very founding it would have to be a self-sufficient community, capable of providing its inhabitants with housing, food, health care and security on top of giving them an education. This is well before banks - if money is needed, there had better be gold in your coffers. All this leads me to wonder what Hogwarts' expenses are, anyway. The castle is paid for - it would have to be as it was constructed by the four founders who presumably had no backers - and it was probably magically constructed. Upkeep and security (all those anti-apparating, anti-muggle, unplottability spells) are probably taken care of by magic. The needs of the students are seen to by a crew of house-elves, who are loyal, work tirelessly and without breaks, will not of their own volition leave their job, and with one very recent and apparently not very well paid exception, do not receive wages. This is a major expense neatly eliminated, and what is left (unless I've forgotten something) is only perishable supplies of all kinds (anything from furniture to food to potion supplies to Professor Trelawney's teacups) and the (human) staff's wages. Now, since we've seen that conjured objects in Potterverse are real (as in, when McGonagall conjures a plate of sandwiches for Ron and Harry in CoS, they are real food and will provide sustenance) there is no reason not to assume that all Hogwarts' material needs are met in just such a fasion. There has been some discussion in this group and others about the limits of what one is capable of conjuring. For the sake of this argument, I'm positing the temporary solution that it takes a powerful wizard to conjure real things out of thin air, and that the larger the object or amout of objects conjured, the more skill is required by the conjurer. Since the Hogwarts staff are all highly skilled wizards and witches, they are capable of providing for their own needs without making the Potterverse too "easy" (I'm picturing a sort of duty rotation, where one month it's McGonagall's turn to do the food and Snape's turn to repair the furniture.) And for all you smart-allecks out there, much like the anti-forgery measures used in muggle money, wizard money has certain security measures that ensure that conjured money doesn't pass for real money. (By the way, I realised canon gets in my way a bit here, as we've seen evidence that some of the food in Hogwarts is grown - Hagrid's Halloween pumpkins or the chickens Ginny kills in CoS - and for that matter, if all school supplies are conjured, why are the school brooms so lousy?) So, all of Hogwarts expenses are taken care of except for the staff's wages (that is, assuming they don't work for room and board. No, probably not.) Going back to my earlier statement that Hogwarts had to be self-sufficient, I think it might be safe to say that the castle has its own means of making money. A secret gold-mine? The royalties of a particularly good potion created by a long dead potions master (in much the same way as universities will stake a claim in any financial venture stemming from research they paid for)? Or for that matter, as someone suggested earlier, a large financial endowment every few decades might see the place through comfortably. This takes care of the problem with canon mentioned in the previous paragraph. Some of the material needs of the castle might be met internally - either through conjuring or by growing stuff (for food and magical supplies) - and other, more specialized needs are shopped out. The castle would therefore be on a budget, and we all know how the sports department is always last for new equipment. My final reason for not believing that Hogwarts is state-run or has at some point been nationalised is its independance. If the MoM are providing the dough, they would have a lot of control over how the school is run - instead of running in fear as he does at the end of GoF, Fudge would simply say something to the effect of "I pay your salary, Dumbledore, and if you want to be able to open the next school-year you'd better not repeat anything you've just told me and start being much more polite". As things stand right now, Dumbledore has a great deal of freedom in setting his curriculum and choosing his staff (Lupin, anybody?) The only indication we've had that he has anyone to answer to is the board of school governors which removes him from office in CoS. This is the only action that we're aware of by this body. I'm not sure how these boards work in other private schools, but this seems to indicate to me that the board's only power is to select a headmaster and remove him if necessary. I don't quite see it as being in Hogwarts interest to be in the financial power of any group or body. So, (pant, pant, pant...) my conclusion is that Hogwarts is neither a tuition charging private school nor a state-run school, but its own entity, largely self-sufficient. It's been around for a thousand years, so people are used to it, it's just the way things are done, you know? And anyway, how are the kids going to get anywhere in life without their NEWTs? So everyone sends their kids to Hogwarts (unless they go to another wizarding school, as Malfoy indicated he might have done) and doesn't think too much about who's running the show or wonder how the school keeps itself solvent without charging any money. Abigail By the way, there are actually 10 or more references to canon in this post, including what I think is an accurate quote (my body is in Haifa but my Harry Potter books are in Tel Aviv (about 100 kilometers away)). Assuming I got everything right, does this make up for my horrible lapse of a few hours ago? From mrboregard at excite.com Wed Mar 13 19:10:01 2002 From: mrboregard at excite.com (Mr_Boregard) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 19:10:01 -0000 Subject: Concern for Neville Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36456 I just wanted to voice a concern I had for our dear fiend Neville. I was sitting up last night and i decided to rean through my copy of ss. As i was reading a horrible thought struck me. As you know, history has a bad habit of repeating itself. We know that Harry Ron and Hermione are a set trio and the best of friends. We also know that Neville is often mixed up with the trio and often ends up helping them out in one way or another. And another thing we know is that the trio will stick up for Neville when others are less than kind to him. I am scared that Neville will become the fourth member of the group...(the weakest member emotionally and skill wise). The question I pose is... is it possible that Neville will be lured to the darkside like Pettigrew before him? It seems to me that there is a possible parallel between Neville and Pettigrew. This may seem a little far-fetched but I wonder what will happen to our hapless friend Mr. Boregard (Hoping Neville can find the emotional strenth to endure) From boggles at earthlink.net Wed Mar 13 19:42:48 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:42:48 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherins evil, and Ron's Talents In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020313102429.00b8a2a0@mail.aracnet.com> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020313102429.00b8a2a0@mail.aracnet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36457 At 10:34 AM -0500 3/13/02, CB wrote: >I don't think people finding themselves sorted into Slytherin are >inherently evil. Ambitious, possibly ruthless, yes, but not *evil*. >I do think, however, that the qualities that make a cannon Slytherin, also >make it far easier for them to become evil. The line between good and evil >for them is very blurred, and what starts out as a driving ambition, with >little thought to the consequences, quickly becomes evil acts. The other House virtues are just as easily pervertable. A hardworking and loyal Hufflepuff can very easily find him/herself working hard for and being loyal to the wrong person. Heck, sounds like Crabbe and goyle to me. I wonder how many Hufflepuffs were loyal to Voldemort the first time he was king of the hill? A Gryffindor can be brave in pursuit of the wrong goal. Bravery by itself can be the makings of a bully - or it can get you killed. And Ravenclaw - well, we've seen in too many horror movies what pursuit of knowledge untempered by ethics can do. *Imgaines a white-robed Ravenclaw with wild hair in a Potions lab, stretching clawed hands to the ceiling and screeching "Ah, they laughed at me at Hogwarts, but I'll show them! I have created LIIIIIIIIIIFE!"* The House virtues are about what you are. They say nothing about what choices you make, whether you use those virtues for wealful ends or harmful ones. At 10:10 AM -0800 3/13/02, Ms Lizard Gizzard wrote: >It's not that I disagree, but could you offer some >evidence? I haven't seen any sign that Ron has any >talent in divination. But then, I haven't really >studied it. It's not that he shows any great talent in Divination per se; it's just that he makes a number of offhand predictions that seem to come true. For example, in CoS, when wondering how Tom Riddle got a trophy for service to the school, he jokingly postulates that he killed Moaning Myrtle - which turns out to be exactly the case. For what it's worth, Harry often does the same thing, although not quite as much. Reading their list of predictions when they start making things up for their Divination homework in GoF 14 is quite amusing once you've read the book already. The only think Ron misses is the timing. This has caused a number of people, including me, to wonder if the gap between Charlie and Percy might not be caused by a death in the Weasley family, as that would make Ron a seventh son and thus a seer. If it happenned before Ron was born, he wouldn't mention the missing brother in his list of siblings, never having known him. Ron also seems to have a talent for catching things; almost any time one of the Trio catches something flying through the air (other than the Snitch, of course, and the Remembrall in PS/SS), it's Ron. Fore example: in CoS, Harry Expelliarmuses the diary from Malfoy (chapter 13) and Lockhart's wand (16); in both cases, Ron catches the item. Hmmmm . . . potential Keeper there, anyone? -- - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon boggles at earthlink.net === Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 === GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+ c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+ ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U! From Ali at zymurgy.org Wed Mar 13 20:15:12 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:15:12 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Upkeep (or Hogwarts, a Financial History) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36458 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "abigailnus" wrote: > Well, you'd think after flying directly in the face of canon (see my not-yet- > 12-hours-old post on whether Lucius Malfoy was at school with LV) I'd be > a bit timid about posting. Luckily, this question has almost no grounding in > canon and so the potential for embarassing myself is low (ah! A challenge!). > Nevertheless, any person reading this post does so at his or her own risk > and with the full understanding that the information contained herein may > be (1) wrong (2) silly (3) very wrong and very silly or (4) the secret to life, > the universe and everything which will make your brain shut down and ooze > out of your ears. You have been warned. > not requiring an attendance fee. My only problem with this is that Hogwarts > is *old*. The sorting hat song from GoF states that it was created "a thousand > years or more ago" and Professor Binns says something to that effect in CoS. > There wasn't even an England a thousand years ago, much less a national > government - are we to assume that wizards were so ahead of muggles in the > field of centralized government that they were able to arrange for public > education for their children? I suppose it's not out of the realm of possibility, > but it doesn't make much sense (although I suppose it is possible that Hogwarts > was "nationalised" at some point in the past 1000 years.) > Abigail > I was really interested in your post, and fully accept that there were not "muggle" schools founded in England 1,000 years ago paid from taxes. However, I'm very confused about your comment about England not existing at that time. If you mean an English state with a centralised Government and accountable parliament, then no it didn't -although the "English" had begun to "unify" under Alfred the Great in the late 9th Century.(I know that's a contentious statement, and apologise as it probably belongs off-topic) But I'm not sure that this matters in the context of Hogwarts - which afterall accepts Scottish and Irish children (and presumably Welsh) and must have evolved over the past 1000 years - even if its spirit remains true to its founders. That a School could be born from a benevolent donation but evolve into a state run - or private run establishment seems to me to be practical and logical. Evolving just as Muggle society evolved around it. I certainly know of schools in Britain that evolved from Foundations into state schools when these began to exist. (This happened with my own school although it later becam private just to confuse the issue!). I understood that Dumbledore was allowed so much freedom at Hogwarts was not due to the fact that Hogwarts wasn't closely related or dictated to by the MOM, but simply because Dumbledore was Dumbledore. In other words it was his personality rather than the school itself which warranted the independence. Have I just mudded the waters still further? Ali From skelkins at attbi.com Wed Mar 13 20:31:48 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:31:48 -0000 Subject: Neville and the Canary Creams In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36459 Porphyria wrote (as an addendum to her excellent post on Lupin's teaching skills, to which I can add nothing but agreements): > Elkins' original concern, if I understood her correctly, was > whether Neville himself feels *condescended to*. Yes, that was precisely my concern, and I believe that it originated for me in the way that Lupin uses Neville's first name in the boggart sequence. He addresses Neville by name in very nearly every sentence that he speaks to him, and that really did made me squirm just a bit as a reader. It's the way that one talks to a much younger child -- or to a dog. It is also, of course, the way that one talks to a frightened person, or to someone in crisis, which I'm sure is the reason that Lupin does it in the first place. Neville *is* frightened -- far more of being put on the spot in front of the entire class, IMNSHO, than of the boggart itself -- and he's known to have some problems with attention and focus, particularly when under stress. I assume that Lupin's repeated use of his first name was intended not merely as a form of reassurance, but also as a means of keeping Neville's attention anchored on the task at hand. And it works. Neville does indeed manage to stay well enough focused, despite his nervousness, to fend off the boggart, and I agree with Porphyria that his self-esteem is clearly bolstered -- in the short term, at any rate -- by the experience. But, but, but. But. > I don't think this is the reaction of someone who feels that they > are being pitied; I don't think Neville is second guessing Lupin's > treatment of him at all at this point. Whether he ponders it at > length in private is anyone's guess... Yes. It *is* anyone's guess at this pont in the game, and this was the reason that I took some pains to qualify my reading of Neville as intensely (and quite possibly utterly unreasonably) personal. I have alluded elsewhere (messages 34381, 34856) to my anxiety with Neville as a character, an anxiety which is rooted in my uneasy suspicion that while JKR certainly knows how to depict Neville-types from an external perspective, she doesn't really "get" them on a deeper level -- doesn't understand how they think, has little insight into the real challenges facing them, does not deduce correctly the nature of their internal lives. >From the perspective of many types of orthodox analysis, of course, this is an absurd notion: as the author, JKR is free to declare Neville's internal life to be whatever she imagines it to be; so long as the character remains internally consistent, the author cannot be "wrong." >From the point of view of a slightly different type of engagement with the text, on the other hand, authors *can* err when it comes to character, and this was the perspective from which I was speaking when I wrote my original throw-away comment about Lupin's boggart lesson. I later backed off from that approach -- and stated far more explicitly my personal bias -- largely because I had then gone from speaking to Kimberley to speaking to David, someone I was guessing, on the basis of some of his previous writings, might feel a bit more comfortable with a far more academic/analytical and far less popular/"fannish" (personalized, interactive, extrapolative, rebellious) approach to the text. But if I may return briefly to the realms of the personal, my reading that Neville might indeed have considered Lupin's pedagogy to be pitying or condescending was based on identification and familiarity with my own responses when faced with similar behavior at that age. I remember all too well the strange mixture of emotions that that sort of thing used to inspired in me: a peculiar blend of gratitude, irritation, and a certain degree of sympathetic (and even at times somewhat contemptuous) bemusement over the oblivious habits of well- intended adults. Most of my housemates, themselves Neville-types as children (what can I say? we tend to stick together), instinctively read the scene much as I did. Does JKR's Neville feel the same way though? Oh, probably not. As I've said elsewhere, I suspect that my reading of Neville and JKR's intended reading are widely divergent. Does canon *exclude* the possibility that he perceives condescension in how he is treated by others, and that this bothers him? No. I don't think that it does. In fact, I think that in places, it supports it. Naama wrote: > Moreover, my sense of Neville is that he feels so weak, luckless > and skill-less that he is humbly grateful for any help or kind > attention that comes his way. . . . He's very lovable that way and > very pitiable too - like a lost child in a panicky search for > someone to lean on. . . . To me, what is so heart rending about > Neville is that he has no self-belief at all. He certainly does not have nearly as much self-belief as he needs. If he did, then he would have stuck to his guns in PS/SS, rather than being suckered into parroting other people's notions of what he should say and do and be. However, the picture of Neville that you are painting strikes me as inconsistent with what we learn about him in GoF: namely, that he is not, in fact, nearly as emotionally transparent as Harry (or the reader) initially imagines him to be. He is keeping secrets. He has a hidden inner life. And far from seeking out others to lean on, he in fact tries to gloss over his vulnerability when Hermione actively offers him a shoulder. He is obviously appreciative of her in many ways, and he likes her well enough to ask her to a ball. He is perfectly willing to beg for her assistance when he believes his pet's life to be in danger. But in the corridor outside of that DADA class, Neville effectively rejects her. And once we realize this about Neville, many of his actions throughout the previous three volumes start to appear in a somewhat different light, IMO. His utter silence, for example, at the beginning of the first book, while Hermione is parading him around from compartment to compartment, helping him to find his toad. The fact that while Harry obviously assumes that his reaction to winning the House Cup for Gryffindor at the end of PS/SS is one of undiluted pleasure at finally receiving some praise -- and while this is certainly the interpretation encouraged in the reader -- the text never actually gives so much as a glimpse of a happy or pleased expression on his face during the event: he is, in fact, merely described as "white with shock." The fact that he never once mentions to any of his classmates that he has "lost" his list of passwords. The way that he chooses to curl up to sleep on the floor outside of the Gryffindor common room when he cannot remember how to get in, rather than seeking out the relevant authority to let him in. The way that he seems so often to vanish from the narrative view -- one moment he's there, the next moment he's not. The fact that although he would seem to have no friends at all, other than perhaps Hermione, we only see him press his company on any of the protagonists twice in four novels: once in PS/SS, when he is terrified of the Bloody Baron; and once in PoA, when he and Harry are the only students in their year still in Hogwarts. Not to mention, of course, the fact that the Sorting Hat took a very long time with him. Neville does indeed send an unspoken but clear message that he is vulnerable, and that he is in a position neither to resent the form in which any help might be given nor to defend himself against those who would take advantage of his vulnerability. But the message that one sends through ones demeanor and the message that one sends through ones actions are not always aligned -- and both of these are even more often misaligned with ones own personal thoughts on the matter. In Neville's case, I see a very strong disconjunct there, and to my mind, this grants him a certain degree of indeterminacy as a character, which in turn makes him rather intriguing. What *does* Neville think about? What *are* his real opinions? His real motivations? We really just don't know. He's a highly opaque character who has been masquerading for three books as an extremely transparent one, and that makes you wonder (or it makes me wonder, at any rate) what else might be going on there. Elirtai wrote, on JKR's character list: > Neville's entry is not only hard to read, it has no symbols or > house at all. There, now. You see? Didn't I just tell you that Neville was a strikingly indeterminate character? Naama signed off with: > Naama, horrified to suddenly realize that Neville is no. 1 > candidate for Forthcoming Death (but would sacrifice Neville in a > minute if it would save Hagrid) You'd trade Neville for Hagrid? Gee whiz. No wonder the poor kid has self-esteem issues. ;-) But I feel fairly certain that Neville's safe until Book Seven. -- Elkins From abigailnus at yahoo.com Wed Mar 13 20:51:05 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:51:05 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Upkeep (or Hogwarts, a Financial History) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36460 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" wrote: > I understood that Dumbledore was allowed so much freedom at Hogwarts > was not due to the fact that Hogwarts wasn't closely related or > dictated to by the MOM, but simply because Dumbledore was Dumbledore. > In other words it was his personality rather than the school itself > which warranted the independence. Personality is all well and good, but even a powerhouse like Dumbledore is only one man. Dumbledore doesn't run Hogwarts so much like a school as like a bastion of hope. He was the one with spies in Voldemort's organization during LV's first reign. He was the one the Potters turned to, the one who helped them hide and suggested the Fidelius charm as a means of protection. Canon is unclear about this point, but I think it's safe to assume that Dumbledore was headmaster of Hogwarts while he was leading the good guys (he was certainly at the school both before - Riddle's memory of him in CoS - and after). At the end of GoF we see that he is turning back to his old ways - he begins reassembling his old team, sending diplomatic missions to the giants, possibly he resurrects his old spy network, and finally, in essence he recruits his entire student body as soldiers on the side of light. This goes well beyond the scope of a headmaster's job description. Now, Dumbledore and Fudge have been on good terms until they part ways in GoF, so it is entirely possible that Fudge has given Dumbledore a great deal of freedom out of respect and awe. But now Fudge views Dumbledore as an enemy, a man likely to spread panic and undermine his station. If Fudge does indeed control Hogwarts' purse-strings, he now has a very powerful weapon to use against Dumbledore. Now that I think about it, this might be an interesting twist to look forward to in OotP. We've all been wondering what Fudge would do to undermine Dumbledore's fight, is it possible he would try to hurt Hogwarts itself, to hold the school as a hostage against Dumbledore's compliant behaviour? This is actually an interesting possibility, which can only take place if Hogwarts is indeed state-run. The only problem I have with it is that Dumbledore, who has obviously been expecting LV's rise since his first fall, would be very unhappy to be under anybody's control if he expected to take up the fight again. He would be wise, therefore, to have set aside some money against the day when Hogwarts returns to its independant roots - and once again we come back to my "Hogwarts is self-sufficient" theory. Abigail From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com Wed Mar 13 20:47:48 2002 From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:47:48 -0000 Subject: Slytherins evil? Not necesarily References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020313102429.00b8a2a0@mail.aracnet.com> Message-ID: <002e01c1cad3$3d13c2e0$2211bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 36461 I don't think people finding themselves sorted into Slytherin are inherently evil. Ambitious, possibly ruthless, yes, but not *evil*. I do think, however, that the qualities that make a cannon Slytherin, also make it far easier for them to become evil. The line between good and evil for them is very blurred, and what starts out as a driving ambition, with little thought to the consequences, quickly becomes evil acts. Charlene If I remember - quoting from memory which is sometines fatal - Dumbledore, when Harry queries why he was nearly sorted into Slytherin says something to the effect that Salazar Slytherin prized ambition, resourcefulness, and a disregard for rules. These are not always qualities guaranteed to turn out the nastier element but maybe more inclined towards it. Slytherin could, I think, turn out excellent positive leaders as, to get to the top in any sphere a wizard or muggle needs cunning and resourcefulness. Many students would not necesarily worry about being sorted into Slytherin, others may have a family tradition e.g. chez maison Malfoy. My only worry about being a Slytherin in that case would be the common room (being at dungeon level) - I hate the dark ;-) Felicia [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com Wed Mar 13 21:07:10 2002 From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 21:07:10 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Upkeep References: Message-ID: <002f01c1cad3$3e7bde60$2211bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 36462 I think that Hogwarts has to be "state" funded as it seems to be the only wizarding school in the UK. I can't believe that it would be in the interest of either the wizarding community - or the Muggle community In that case the mystery is, who funds it? The wizarding community cannot be huge and the financial implications in feeding and housing several hundred students, teaching staff of various levels and the upkeep of Hogwarts etc. must be considerable. I believe that the children of Hogwarts are there on merit, and merit alone. All children in the UK have a right to free education, and perhaps by extension, all wizarding children in Britain have a right to a free wizarding education. Merit assumes, surely, that at some stage these children have been tested to form the desired *meritocracy*. Harry's name had been down since he was born (I THINK....) and, obviously, at no stage was he tested, Hagrid just appears and takes him off to Hogwarts, much to HP's surprise. Quality schooling costs, as muggle countries find who try to pinch pennies, so the reasoning still stands that to provide outstanding quality education, all or some of the fees must be paid by parents - with or without Wizarding Education Ministry assistance. Felicia [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gwynyth at drizzle.com Wed Mar 13 21:21:35 2002 From: gwynyth at drizzle.com (Jenett) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:21:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts Upkeep In-Reply-To: <002f01c1cad3$3e7bde60$2211bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36463 On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Felicia Rickmann wrote: > Quality schooling costs, as muggle countries find who try to pinch > pennies, so the reasoning still stands that to provide outstanding > quality education, all or some of the fees must be paid by parents - > with or without Wizarding Education Ministry assistance. Depends. If you start with a large enough endowment, and can sufficiently keep costs down, you can do a lot more. Bear in mind that there aren't exactly *loads* of other teaching positions out there. Someone who truly wants to teach is sort of stuck with one of a limited number of schools (and that assumes they want to leave the country, speak the appropriate language, and can find another school to hire them.) This will probably keep teaching salaries down to a room+board+stipend sort of level, rather than quite high cash salaries. (And even then, we only know about a relatively small number of faculty members. It takes relatively little cash, proportionate to most school budgets, to pay for 15-20 staff members, particularly if you also provide room and board.) Also bear in mind that much of the actual labor that would need to take place at most schools is done by (mostly) unsalaried help, and that the actual building has long since been paid for, and (unlike modern schools which need rewiring or expansion for new chemistry labs or whatever) don't really need to deal with major renovation expenses for the sake of keeping up with technology. It's also entirely possible that some of the food or upkeep expenses in a normal school are dealt with through magical means - we just don't know how that works. There are a number of schools in the US which either partially or fully funded by endowments. The prep school I attended (one of the oldest in the US) had a generous financial aid policy, but more than that, contributed *over $5,000* to each student's tuition costs each year. Now, granted, said school has one of the largest endowments in the country - but an endowment that has been growing for a thousand years, supplemented by occaisional gifts or memorial funds or whatever would do quite adequately unless it were exceptionally poorly managed. (There are also a number of schools which are completely or nearly so to the student, and the money comes from endowments. They're usually not very well-known, however) Given the other aspects of the school, I think it's perfectly likely they could deal with those things that needed money on that kind of basis ($5,000 or so a student from endowment or perhaps the MoM). I don't think it's obvious that there have to be fees to pay - it may just be that the combination of how many kids the Weasleys have in school and the incidental expenses are what causes problems for the Weasleys, not any actual tuition payments. -Jenett From Aegeus86 at aol.com Wed Mar 13 21:12:55 2002 From: Aegeus86 at aol.com (Aegeus86 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:12:55 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Prejudices (was Malfoy's Choice of Date) Message-ID: <154.a6d5865.29c11ad7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36464 In a message dated 3/13/2002 6:28:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, rusalka at ix.netcom.com writes: > In fact, we know Hagrid was talking crap, since at the time he said > this, Sirius Black, Gryffindor stud-muffin extraordinaire, was > sitting in Azkaban with the whole wizarding world (including Hagrid) > believing that he was Voldemort's best buddy. And even after it > turned out that Sirius is innocent, the guilty party was yet another > Gryffindor. So we *know* not all the wizards who went bad are > Slytherins. No where in canon are we told that Peter, Sirius, or even Lupin, were in Gryffindor. Most people have just assumed that. There is always the possibility that they were in different houses. ~Aegeus First Mate, SS Ares Writer of Haiku to inspire fic authors Head of the "Get Keith to Like Draco and Read Snitch!" committee Proud H/H and H/D shipper! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Mar 13 21:56:50 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 21:56:50 -0000 Subject: Houses of Marauders (WAS: Re: Prejudices (was Malfoy's Choice of Date)) In-Reply-To: <154.a6d5865.29c11ad7@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36465 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Aegeus86 at a... wrote: > No where in canon are we told that Peter, Sirius, or even Lupin, were in > Gryffindor. Most people have just assumed that. There is always the > possibility that they were in different houses. > It's true that the Marauders' house affiliation was never specifically spelled out in canon. (I believe JKR said they were all Gryffindors in an interview somewhere, but I don't know where, and in any case I hold to the view that if it's not in the books it's not canon.) However, I think there's fair amount of circumstantial evidence pointing to them all being in the same house. In the course of four years, have we ever seen *any* student form a close friendship outside of their house? We've seen interhouse romances (hormones being what they are), but no friendships. The school culture doesn't encourage it. Students live with their housemates, take all meals with their housemates, attend classes with their housemates (and at most one other house). They hang out in their own common rooms, which are password-protected to keep other houses from getting in. There are no mixed-house athletic teams -- no opportunity at all, really, for people to socialize outside of their own house. Given that, I think it would be near-impossible for the Marauders to form the close bond that they obviously had unless they were all in the same house. And if they *had* managed it, I think it would be a highly unusual thing, something people would remember and talk about even a generation later. So if James was in Gryffindor, I'd say they all were. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From matthew.jackson at 4paperbuildings.com Wed Mar 13 21:34:25 2002 From: matthew.jackson at 4paperbuildings.com (pekiaki) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 21:34:25 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Upkeep Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36467 In message # 36455, Abigail said > There wasn't even an England a thousand years ago, much less > a national government - are we to assume that wizards were so ahead > of muggles in the field of centralized government that they were > able to arrange for public education for their children? According to Bede, the first "state funded" school in England was founded in 631 AD by Sigebert (no kidding!), King of the East Angles. This was modelled on an existing school in Canterbury, but it is not clear when that school was founded, or by whom. The "state funding" wouldn't have been in the form we think of, through taxation. A (muggle) school's operating expenses would have been met out of income from land gifted to the school by its founder. As Hogwarts was founded in the 10th century or earlier, the founders could well have adopted the same system. The jewels on Gryffindor's sword show that he at least was very wealthy (as well as being one of the four greatest wizards of the day). That doesn't mean that Hogwarts is still funded the same way. Its estates may have been sold or seized, and even if they have not the present income from them may not cover the running costs. All I'm saying is that Hogwarts' age doesn't mean that it has to be a fee paying school ... Pekiaki From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Mar 13 22:10:16 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 22:10:16 -0000 Subject: Something (FILK) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36468 Something (in the stuff she brewed) A filk by Pippin to the tune of the Beatles' Something The Scene: Moaning Myrtle's Bathroom, Christmas Day, 1992 HARRY and RON: Something in the stuff she brewed Has given us the perfect cover Something in the stuff she brewed us RON: You look just like Goyle right now HARRY: I don't want to look and how HERMIONE (from her stall) One glass of this polyjuice And I'll be going undercover One glass and I'll (erp!) -- excuse me. RON and HARRY: She wont go with us to see What's up with Hermione? (One hour later) HERMIONE: So, did you find out who's the heir? RON and HARRY: We don't know, we don't know HERMIONE: I think this wasn't Millie's hair MYRTLE: Now you've got a tail, ho! ho! HERMIONE: Something in that stuff I brewed has given me a spot of bother Something in the stuff has -- Dear me! I don't want to leave here now I don't want to leave and how (Meow! Meow! Meow!) (Meow! Meow! Meow!) From pennylin at swbell.net Wed Mar 13 22:26:22 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:26:22 -0600 Subject: ADMIN: Messages to the Moderators Message-ID: <3C8FD20E.3010908@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36469 Hi -- A quick reminder to everyone: if you need to contact the moderators with any questions, but especially technical questions, or with comments, please write us *OFF-LIST* at one of the following email addresses (just like it asks on the homepage & in the admin files that you all received): HPforgrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com MagicalMods at yahoogroups.com Also -- you subscribed yourself to this group. This means that you *also* hold the power to *unsubscribe* yourself (and change your settings to receive digests or individual emails or special announcements or webview only). Go to "yahoogroups.com" -- then "My groups" -- then "Edit my groups." There is a box on the far right that you can check to "leave group." Then hit "save changes." It's not rocket science. :--) Thanks, Penny Magical Moderator Team From siskiou at earthlink.net Wed Mar 13 22:32:20 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:32:20 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Concern for Neville In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <59185407562.20020313143220@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36470 Hi, Wednesday, March 13, 2002, 11:10:01 AM, Mr_Boregard wrote: > (Hoping Neville can find the emotional strenth to endure) I think he will! He doesn't seem like the kind of person who would go over to the dark side to gain acceptance. In my opinion he shows plenty of emotional strength just by coming back to Hogwarts to "endure" another year of Snape. Though, maybe that's better than Grandma and the rest of the family? They don't sound very compassionate to me. But still, I think Neville will play an important role in future books, but not as a liability. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From john at walton.vu Wed Mar 13 22:26:49 2002 From: john at walton.vu (John Walton) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 22:26:49 +0000 Subject: ADMIN: Yahoo down this weekend Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36471 Greetings from the HPFGU Hexquarters, where we have just received an owl from Lord Yahoomort himself. ____________________________________________ Dear DeathEater! Groups Members, The DeathEater! Groups service will be down for scheduled maintenance Friday, March 15, 9:00 PM PST (GMT-8) as we move our servers to a new facility. We expect the service to be restored the morning of Sunday March 17. During this time the web site will be unavailable and email will not be delivered. (Some users may experience email non-delivery notices while the service is down, but all email should be delivered once service is resumed.) Please note: once the service is restored, there will be email delays due to backlog. We expect these delays to last no longer than 1 day. Please do not re-send email to your group as this will only add to delays. ____________________________________________ Which is nice. Again. Well, folks, all that the Mods can say is that we hope that you enjoy a little bit of rest and relaxation from the HPFGUniverse this weekend. If you're craving your Harry Potter fix, you could always try FictionAlleyPark, at www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark, where some of the Mods and your fellow listies hang out, talking about much more than just fanfic. Sunday Chat will go on as scheduled for Sunday. As Yahoo!Groups will be down, the easiest way to access it will be via CheetaChat (for PCs) or miChat (for Macs). Here's the lowdown: Every week, we have a chat in a Yahoo Chat Room (HP:1) which usually starts between 3 and 4 pm US Eastern Time and ends at 7, 8, 9 or even later! (UK time: add five hours. US Pacific Time: subtract three hours) Consult www.versiontracker.com for the latest upgrades to these. Generally, all you will need is your Yahoo ID and the chatroom name (HP:1). If you have problems with setting these up, please contact the Mods at HPforGrownups-Owner at yahoogroups.com until Yahoo goes into hibernation. After that, you can email me personally at john at walton.vu and I'll be more than happy to help out with any problems. If there's interest, you should all feel free to be in the chatroom whenever you want over this weekend -- so go for it :) Magically yours, --John, technoModerator with Rock #47 for the HPFGU Moderator Team ____________________________________________ "Summoned, I take the place that has been prepared for me. I am Grey. I stand between the candle and the star. We are Grey. We stand between the darkness and the light." --Delenn, Babylon 5 John Walton || john at walton.vu ____________________________________________ From lucy at luphen.co.uk Wed Mar 13 22:38:21 2002 From: lucy at luphen.co.uk (Lucy Austin) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 22:38:21 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] All things green References: Message-ID: <00e401c1cadf$c7bdb160$71af1e3e@stephen> No: HPFGUIDX 36472 1. PoA (UK) pg 32: 'Stan came back downstairs, followed by a faintly green witch wrapped in a travelling cloak'. 2. FBAWTFT (UK - I assume these are allowed?) pg 5: 'The Bundimum at rest resembles a patch of greenish fungus with eyes'. 3. CoS (UK) pg 226: 'casting long black shadows through the odd, greenish gloom that filled the place.' 4. QTTA (UK) pg 33: 'The Welsh Catapults, formed in 1402, wear vertically striped robes of light green and scarlet'. 5. PS (UK) pg 78: 'Now there were woods, twisting rivers and dark green hills.' Lucy Most Sortings put me in Ravenclaw [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skelkins at attbi.com Wed Mar 13 23:20:44 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 23:20:44 -0000 Subject: Crouch Jr and Mystery DEs, Fourth Man, SYCOPHANTS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36473 Hi, Jamie! Wow. Did you *know* that you were touching on all of my favorite topics here? I mean, it's just uncanny. You hit Crouch Jr. You hit the graveyard scene. And you even brought up the ever so mysterious Fourth Man! I hope that you don't mind long replies. ;-> Jamie asked: > Does anyone else think that, while Crouch Jr. was certainly guilty > of being a Death Eater, he may not have been guilty of using an > Unforgiveable Curse? Yes, that's occurred to me as well, and honestly, it wouldn't particularly surprise me if JKR were to reveal this as truth in some later volume. It seems perfectly likely to me that while guilty of being a Death Eater, Crouch really was innocent of torturing the Longbottoms. Dumbledore himself acknowledges that there was little real evidence against him, and from what we saw of the ugly mood of the crowd at his sentencing -- not to mention his father's desperation to uphold his hard-line reputation -- his trial was obviously grotesquely biased. Like Eileen, I too find myself wondering if Crouch might not have been telling the truth whenever I contemplate his behavior in Penseive. He was obviously a rebellious teen, and there does seem to me to be a strong hint of that classic indignation of the bad kid actually *wrongly* accused for once in his life -- "But when I'm *really* telling the truth, you won't even *believe* me!" -- to his pleas in Penseive. It's emotionally magnified by a factor of thousands, of course, but nonetheless I do still see bit of it there. And it *is* interesting that no one bothers to ask him about the Longbottoms while he's under the veritaserum, isn't it? Certainly JKR's left open the possibility that he might have been innocent -- and making him so would be just the sort of thing that she likes to do. But then, of course, there's plenty to support the notion that he was guilty as well. Personally, I tend to prefer to believe that he really *was* guilty, but only because I find that believing him so makes his interactions with Neville in GoF absolutely fascinating for me to contemplate. (And also, as Eileen pointed out, I really do enjoy spinning wild and implausible backstories predicated on the assumption of young Crouch's guilt. For "Neville Owed A Life-Debt To Barty Crouch," see the ends of both messages #35187 and #35895.) > It's come up before that maybe he was under the Imperious Curse. > How else could a man who spent most of his adult life in Azkaban > perform such difficult magic unassisted? 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, for example, Pettigrew offers up Sirius' escape from Azkaban as proof 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?") And Pettigrew himself seems to me to be *extremely* magically capable, for someone who is constantly accused of being a weak wizard. That muggle-blasting spell couldn't have been easy, and I imagine that the ritual spell by which Voldemort was rebirthed in GoF must have been quite difficult -- yet Pettigrew manages to complete it even after severing his own hand. It seems more than likely to me that casting ones lot in with Dark forces really *does* grant one a certain boost in magical power. It would do much to explain Dark magic's siren song appeal to those ambitious, power-hungry, ends-over-means, rules-disregarding, fair- play-is-for-dummies members of House Slytherin. And there's also an enormous weight of cultural and literary precedent behind the notion. Traditionally, after all, deals with the Devil do usually get you *something* -- even if you pay far too high a price for it, in the end. If this is the case, then it could help to explain Crouch's magical prowess. We know that he was exceptionally bright to begin with: he got twelve O.W.L.S. And then, under the influence of veritaserum, he claims that once he had been nursed back to health after being rescued from Azkaban: "I had to be controlled. My father had to use a number of spells to subdue me." In fact, his father eventually resorts to the Imperius Curse to keep him under control. That certainly makes it sound to me as if even at the age of twenty, young Barty was magically powerful. If he was getting an added boost from Dark magic, then he could have been quite formidable indeed. > It seems unlikely to me that such a young man with no family > background in the Dark Arts should be able to perform the Cruciatus > curse to the degree required to drive the Longbottoms to insanity. Well, at the risk of sounding utterly morbid here, I don't really know that I think this would be nearly so much a matter of magical prowess as it would be a matter of...well, *time* mainly. Time and patience and, er, determination. We don't know, after all, how long the Longbottoms were forced to suffer. I rather got the impression that it, um... that it went on for a while. And, of course, Crouch had help. Which brings us to... > Who are the other Death Eaters involved in that trial? There are > two men and a woman - one of those men and the women might be the > Lestranges? The text never explicitly states that they were the Lestranges, but it implies it so *very* strongly that I think we're reasonably safe making that assumption. I find it very difficult to imagine why JKR would have chosen to deliberately lead the reader astray on that particular point. > Who is the last man? Anyone we know? Ah-HAH! Eileen wrote: > /me calls to Cindy, Elkins, and Avery (still dripping wet and > cowering under Cindy's tough gaze) > "Let's row the Fourth Man kayak over here to talk with Jamie, OK?" Yes! Let's! Jamie wrote, about the mysterious Fourth Man: > Whoever he is, we can presume he is still in Azkaban. Ah. But *can* we? It certainly is curious that Voldemort doesn't mention him by name in the graveyard, isn't it? He raves on and on about the Lestranges, after all, who were loyal to him even after his downfall, who have suffered imprisonment for him, who will be sprung from Azkaban and be honored above all other Death Eaters, yadda yadda yadda. He just can't stop rubbing all of the other DEs' noses in how much he loves those Lestranges, right? So what *about* that Fourth Man? If he were still alive and in prison, then presumably he would be mentioned along with the Lestranges. Even if we assume that he died in Azkaban, you would still think that he would warrant some special mention, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you think that as Voldemort was walking around his Death Eater circle, he would have said something along the lines of: "And here is where once stood so-and-so, who remained loyal to me, who died a martyr's death for me in Azkaban," and all that blah- blah-blah? Well, I sure would. I also find the Fourth Man's utter anonymity in the text highly suspicious. Why *does* he go unnamed throughout Book Four? The reader is certainly encouraged to be interested in the Longbottom Affair. We are given (or at least believe ourselves to have been given) the names of the other three defendents. So why should the identity of that Fourth Man remain so strangely hidden from view? Could it be because his identity is intended to come as a surprise when it *is* finally revealed to us? Could the Fourth Man in fact be a character we have seen...and yet not seen? Is there a character who seems unusually strongly emphasized by the text, and yet has no seeming narrative *function?* A character that we as readers have been actively encouraged to pay attention to and to remember, but who nonetheless seems to have no strong connection to anything else within the story? A character who although he has indeed appeared, has yet remained so utterly lacking in any form of physical description that he really could be just about *anyone?* A character whose face and normal speaking voice have been obscured both from both Harry's view and from our own? Is there a character who has a name, but neither face nor role -- just as the Fourth Man has both a face and a role...but no name? The "Fourth Man" theory, outlined in message #35062, proposes that the mysterious Fourth Man in the Pensive scene was actually Avery, who managed to secure himself a pardon when his case was reexamined during the political backlash to which Sirius refers in the "Padfoot Returns" chapter of GoF, the same wave of public sentiment which swept Fudge into office as Minister of Magic and got Crouch Sr. shunted off into the Department of International Magical Cooperation. It further proposes that after his release from Azkaban, Avery shunned Dark activities, severed all connections with his former DE colleagues, and *certainly* made no effort at all to seek out Voldemort. This, claims Fourth Man, is the reason that Avery arrives at the graveyard in such a highly nervous condition, and the reason that he cracks so quickly once Voldemort starts accusing his Death Eaters of ideological infidelity. It is also, the theory suggests, the reason that Voldemort punishes Avery for the same sins that he is willing to overlook in others. The other DEs abandoned Voldemort at the time of his fall, which is a matter of self-interest, of wishing to be on the winning side -- in short, a matter of ambition, a motivation which a Slytherin Old Boy like Tom Riddle can grudgingly accept. Avery, on the other hand, remained loyal to Voldemort even after his fall and only later abandoned his efforts, thus making it obvious that his infidelity was motivated less by any personal ambition than by weakness and fear -- both things that Voldemort simply despises. "Fourth Man" therefore offers the suggestion that the reason that Voldemort never mentions Crouch Jr's fourth co-defendent in the graveyard scene is because all of the DEs present already know perfectly well who the Fourth Man was: he was Avery, and Voldemort has made it all too clear what he thinks of the Fourth Man's performance -- namely, that it was shoddy beyond all hope of forgiveness, so craven that only thirteen years of faithful service could possibly even begin to make amends for it. The canonical defense for this theory, and for its mother-theory, "Redeemable Avery," is laid out in messages #34911, 35062, and 35187. Eileen wrote: > Avery comes with sidehelpings of Imperius, Remorse, and whatever > else you want to add. Yup. We're pretty accomodating here in the Fourth Man kayak. Because the Fourth Man Theory grew out of a previous "Redeemable Avery" defense, many of the variants on Fourth Man are designed to excuse or to defend his behavior, but if you like him better as a thoroughly venal and villainous coward, then you're free to stick with "No-Frills Fourth Man." Otherwise, you could go for "Fourth Man with Remorse," in which Avery feels truly repentent about his DE past and has been striving for the past decade or so to redeem himself. In "Fourth Man With SHIP," Avery was hopelessly in love with Mrs. Lestrange, remained so even after she married his classmate and romantic rival, joined the DEs in the first place largely in the hopes of impressing her, and joined with her and her husband in searching for Voldemort chiefly out of personal devotion. In "Fourth Man With Imperius," Avery really *did* spend much of his time as a Death Eater under the Imperius Curse. There's even a "Fourth Man With Innocence," in which Avery, although he was indeed a Death Eater, was nonetheless utterly innocent of any complicity at all in the Longbottom Affair and was arrested and convicted solely on the basis of guilt by association with the Lestranges. Naturally, all manner of permutations of these factors (some even involving perversions!) are possible. "Fourth Man with Imperius, SHIP *and* Remorse," for example, is my own personal favorite (and also one for which Porphyria has expressed a preference), while I believe that Eileen prefers to take her Fourth Man with Remorse alone. Cindy, who does not share our Bleeding Heart tendencies, is far more of a No-Frills type. Avery himself, although he sometimes shares the kayak with us, doesn't get to express his own opinion on the matter, because he's just an in-jokey parody of somebody else's fictional character, and so doesn't count. ;^) So that's Fourth Man. It's, er, not a very *popular* theory, I'm afraid. In fact, at one point I seem to remember being reduced to claiming that two people constituted a "drove" in my feeble attempt to portray it as a burgeoning speculative movement. But you're welcome to join us, if you like. We don't have staterooms or cute cabin boys or tasty snacks or great big can(n)ons, like some of those bigger ships do, but...um...we do have Avery on board as our mascot. And sometimes Cindy brings S'mores. Eileen warns: > But remember that the crew of the Avery kayak: Elkins, Cindy, > Eileen (and anyone else?)... Well, Porphyria once agreed to join us, but I think that she was probably just being polite. > ...are rather bloodyminded people, and are also into bloody > ambushes. That is true, I'm afraid, but you don't really have to be morbid and bloody-minded to adhere to the Fourth Man theory. In fact, Fourth Man is really quite a kind and gentle theory, offering as it does the possibility of redemption and great reader sympathy to a character who, frankly, does not seem terribly likely to be granted the same consideration by Rowling herself. Nor, for that matter, do you even have to join the Society for Yes- Men, Cowards, Ostriches, Passive-Aggressives, Hysterics, Abject Neurotics, and Toadying SYCOPHANTS -- an organization for the promotion of reader sympathy and identification with a wide range of grossly underappreciated character types -- if you don't want to. Very few people do. In fact, I believe that Eileen and I are SYCOPHANTS' *only* two members. Which does mean, though, that if you want in, you'll be on the ground floor, so that when the stampede to join us begins, as really, it must do, one of these days... Eileen? > Eileen, still smarting from being called a SYNCHOPHANT by Elkins, > but not sure how to deny it... Smarting? Uh-oh. Smarting? Because I called you a SYCOPHANT? Oh, but Eileen, consider the *source,* will you? I mean, I'm all in *favor* of sycophants! Look, I've even got the badge to prove it. And besides, you think that *I'm* one to talk? The person who grovels at Captain Tabouli's feet, only to then turn around and spray- paint graffiti all over the side of her SHIP? The person who snaps at Tough Cindy about canonical *support,* of all things, only to then back away quickly, hands raised and teeth bared in an ameliorating submissive grin, whining for forgiveness? The person who calls herself a Sweetgeorgian, yet who jumps onto the Big Bang destroyer whenever she gets bored, vacillates wildly between wearing her featherboas with pride and shuddering at the mere thought of them, claims to dislike SHIPs but can't seem to stop boarding them, and confesses to a partiality for So EWWWWWer It's In the SEEWWWWWWer? And you're worried because *I* called *you* a *sycophant?* There is *nothing wrong* with being a SYCOPHANT! We are fine people, people of great sensitivity and refinement. Oh, sure, we may not have much in the way of those boring old heroic virtues, like Toughness and Valor and Honesty and Integrity and the Courage of Our Convictions. We may not get much in the way of reader sympathy, and we may rarely get happy endings. But we have something even better than that! We have...we have *soul,* is what we have! We have complexity! We're cross-motivated! We have pathos, and we have bathos, and sometimes we even have a touch of eros! We. Have. HUMANITY. And so long as we stand together... ...er, which may prove a little difficult for us, as truth be told we're not really known for our loyalty... ...and, um, which might also prove a bit difficult for us as we are, as a class, generally more comfortable kneeling, or lying prostrate on the ground, or else curled into fetal position than we are standing... ...and, um, which could *also* prove difficult given that to date there are in fact only the two of us here in SYCOPHANTS, no one else having been willing to buy a badge, or even to accept a *free* badge, or even for that matter to sign a single lousy one of our many petitions... ...and...and...oh, damn, where was I? Oh, yes. That's right. *And,* so long as we stand together, we shall certainly if not exactly prevail (for in truth, we hardly ever do that), nonetheless *survive* -- which is very nearly *almost* as good as prevailing, once you factor in all of the extenuating circumstances, and, um, well, and...you know. And take one consideration with the other. And all of that. -- Elkins, offering to read Eileen that nice bit at the end of Return of the King where nasty old Saruman finally gets his, if it will help her to feel better about the whole SYCOPHANTS thing. From racket at club-internet.fr Wed Mar 13 23:52:16 2002 From: racket at club-internet.fr (julie) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:52:16 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Concern for Neville References: Message-ID: <3C8FE62F.8294CE6@club-internet.fr> No: HPFGUIDX 36474 Mr_Boregard a ?crit : The question I pose is... is it possible that Neville will be lured to > the darkside like Pettigrew before him? > > It seems to me that there is a possible parallel between Neville and > Pettigrew. > > > Hi! I don't think Neville will join the dark side because his parents were hurt by the death eaters. Dumbledore says in GoF that Neville visits his parents with his grandmother during the holidays and that they don't recognize him. So Neville must really be against the dark side, maybe he wants to avenge his parents and will find the courage to do it. Pettigrew was weak and not a great wizard: he needed the help of Sirius, James and Lupin to be an animagus; he was not very good at school. Or Neville can do things on his own: in PS he tried to stop Harry and co from going out of Gryffindor tower, and in GoF he's doing well in herbology. julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From john at walton.vu Thu Mar 14 00:37:28 2002 From: john at walton.vu (johnwaltonvu) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:37:28 -0000 Subject: ADMIN (resend): Yahoo down this weekend Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36475 [Mod note: I'm resending this as a Special Notice, which means that all listmembers will receive it via email. Apologies for the duplication. --John] Greetings from the HPFGU Hexquarters, where we have just received an owl from Lord Yahoomort himself. ____________________________________________ Dear DeathEater! Groups Members, The DeathEater! Groups service will be down for scheduled maintenance Friday, March 15, 9:00 PM PST (GMT-8) as we move our servers to a new facility. We expect the service to be restored the morning of Sunday March 17. During this time the web site will be unavailable and email will not be delivered. (Some users may experience email non-delivery notices while the service is down, but all email should be delivered once service is resumed.) Please note: once the service is restored, there will be email delays due to backlog. We expect these delays to last no longer than 1 day. Please do not re-send email to your group as this will only add to delays. ____________________________________________ Which is nice. Again. Well, folks, all that the Mods can say is that we hope that you enjoy a little bit of rest and relaxation from the HPFGUniverse this weekend. If you're craving your Harry Potter fix, you could always try FictionAlleyPark, at www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark, where some of the Mods and your fellow listies hang out, talking about much more than just fanfic. Sunday Chat will go on as scheduled for Sunday. As Yahoo!Groups will be down, the easiest way to access it will be via CheetaChat (for PCs) or miChat (for Macs). Here's the lowdown: Every week, we have a chat in a Yahoo Chat Room (HP:1) which usually starts between 3 and 4 pm US Eastern Time and ends at 7, 8, 9 or even later! (UK time: add five hours. US Pacific Time: subtract three hours) Consult www.versiontracker.com for the latest upgrades to these. Generally, all you will need is your Yahoo ID and the chatroom name (HP:1). If you have problems with setting these up, please contact the Mods at HPforGrownups-Owner at yahoogroups.com until Yahoo goes into hibernation. After that, you can email me personally at john at walton.vu and I'll be more than happy to help out with any problems. If there's interest, you should all feel free to be in the chatroom whenever you want over this weekend -- so go for it :) Magically yours, --John, technoModerator with Rock #47 for the HPFGU Moderator Team ____________________________________________ "Summoned, I take the place that has been prepared for me. I am Grey. I stand between the candle and the star. We are Grey. We stand between the darkness and the light." --Delenn, Babylon 5 John Walton || john at walton.vu ____________________________________________ From Joanne0012 at aol.com Thu Mar 14 01:16:14 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 01:16:14 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Upkeep In-Reply-To: <002f01c1cad3$3e7bde60$2211bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36476 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Felicia Rickmann" wrote: > > > I think that Hogwarts has to be "state" funded as it seems to be the > only wizarding school in the UK. I can't believe that it would be in > the interest of either the wizarding community - or the Muggle > community > > In that case the mystery is, who funds it? The wizarding community cannot be huge and the financial implications in feeding and housing several hundred students, teaching staff of various levels and the upkeep of Hogwarts etc. must be considerable. Why couldn't the wizarding comunity fund Hogwarts? The students are there in proportion to the adult population, just as they are in muggle schools. And the wizarding community apparently doesn't fund any lower (e.g., elementary) or higher (e.g., college) levels of education; Hogwarts would be the only educational institution they'd support. Costs would be lower than at comparable muggle schools, as the physical plant has long since been amortized and much of the labor is provided by house elves. If they can support an entire complex Ministry of Magic, they can also suport a school! From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Thu Mar 14 01:25:59 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:25:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Where was Snape? Message-ID: <20020314012559.21700.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36477 Where was Snape the night Quirrell was trying to steal the stone? Isn't it he knows somebody (Quirrell) is trying to steal it? Why was he not as protective of the stone as the trio? Does he really want Voldemort to have the stone, after all, pretending that he's trying to stop Quirrell so that nobody (including Quirrell) will suspect him? -Ron Yu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From zoehooch at yahoo.com Thu Mar 14 02:28:59 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 02:28:59 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Upkeep In-Reply-To: <002f01c1cad3$3e7bde60$2211bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36478 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Felicia Rickmann" wrote: > In that case the mystery is, who funds it? The wizarding community cannot be huge and the financial implications in feeding and housing several hundred students, teaching staff of various levels and the upkeep of Hogwarts etc. must be considerable. I have always assumed that Hogwarts has a very considerable endowment contribued by its graduates. And, with the British wizarding community being as small and well-known to each other as it is, I'm sure that most graduates do contribute to its upkeep as a social obligation. We see that Lucius Malfoy made a "generous contribution" to St. Mungos. I would suspect that most British wizarding families have made some kind of contribution to Hogwarts. And, I suspect that the goblins who run Gringott's have discovered ways for their customers (I am assuming that Hogwarts has its gold there) to make an excellent return on thier wizarding investments. Zoe Hooch From porphyria at mindspring.com Thu Mar 14 02:33:17 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 21:33:17 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwarts Upkeep Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36479 I've been reading with interest the various posts on how Hogwarts is funded, and whether it is public (and therefore, perhaps, the tuition is covered) or private. I'm going to argue that it is public to the extent that it comes under the jurisdiction of Fudge and the MOM. At the end of GoF when Fudge is being confronted with with unbearable truth about Voldemort, he interjects: "Now, see here, Dumbledore," he said, waving a threatening finger. "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. But if you're going to work against me -" To me this strongly implies that Fudge does outrank Dumbledore and can, if he wants to, override him in matters of the school's administration. He simply chooses not to do so, for several reasons. Up until now, Fudge has relied on Dumbledore's advice for his own job (Hagrid in PS/SS: "They wanted Dumbledore fer Minister, o' course, but he'd never leave Hogwarts, so old Cornelius Fudge got the job. Bungler if ever there was one. So he pelts Dumbledore with owls every morning, askin' fer advice.") and since Dumbledore is so very powerful, popular and respected, Fudge might consider it very dodgy to cross him. Fudge himself is neither a king nor a dictator, and though it's unclear whether he is elected or appointed, as a politician he relies on support from many people who would be outraged if he were to try to order Dumbledore around in any but the gravest issues. So I'd say Hogwarts is public to the extent that it's not independent from the government. Also, it's got the board of governors, who probably administer a wide variety of issues. We know they have the power to hire, fire and suspend Headmasters, but surely you wouldn't need a whole board to deal with just that. They must have a variety of administrative duties. They do recommend to Fudge to have Hagrid removed in CoS: "Look, Albus," said Fudge, uncomfortably. "Hagrid's record's against him. Ministry's got to do something - the school governors have been in touch -" So they've got some miscellaneous power. I believe one of the functions of a board of governors, at least IRL, is to manage an endowment. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true here too. I agree with the others who've suggested that Hogwarts must be able to manage to fund it's poorer students; Ali mentioned and I agree, among other things, that the Creeveys and possibly the Weasleys must get some fellowship coverage. While there is no way students can get strictly 'merit' scholarships prior to beginning school, it is still possible that as long as they don't get chucked out entirely that by virtue of being magical they 'qualify' for aid if they need it. I'd say either tuition is covered in all cases or it's on a sliding scale. After all, I would think it would be a point of pride for the Malfoy's to either write out a hefty check each year for tuition, or at least make a big annual contribution to the endowment (at least before Lucius got sacked from the board). I suspect there is more than enough money in the UK wizarding community to keep the endowment replenished. ~~Porphyria -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From editor at texas.net Thu Mar 14 02:42:04 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:42:04 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DE Name Origin, & some Dark Mark References: <20020313174957.6963.cpmta@c012.snv.cp.net> Message-ID: <00b601c1cb01$d44545c0$1e7c63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36480 Greeting, Leroyal. Love your name; I'm related to a Ewell Albert Clarke III and I know a Millard Hill Almon III--thirds of the world, unite! You said: > Anyone out there ever wonder about the origin of the term "Death Eater"? Why exactly are LV's followers referred to as such? Could it be that in his many immortality experiments he discovered a way for others to consume small doses of his mortality, leaving him, essentially, deathless? Or, maybe this could give credence to the argument (from a little while back) that AK absorbs some part of the witch or wizard it is used on. Maybe the DE's used AK to absorb and then deliver to LV a sort of life essence from all of their victims, thereby making him (LV) one big battery of life (and, therefore, immortal). > Ooh! And, therefore, when LV tried AK on Harry (who was protected by his mother's self sacrificial charm) AK was twisted into something else when it rebounded on LV, either because of the charm or his many experiments. Or, I could be wrong. This is me: Very interesting ideas, all of them. My husband tells me that the name "Death Eater" instantly reminded him of Sin Eaters--the name for an old Welsh practice, whereby a willing person "took on" the sins of a dying person, and would go to confession and do the penance for them, to save the dying person from the consequences of their sin (I'm presuming that this was done when a priest wasn't handy to do Last Rites, or something; it's been quite a few months since my husband and I discussed this). Any Welsh people got anything else on this? Perchance Voldemort's immortality results from the Death Eaters' having "taken" his death in similar wise--a bit to each...? This feeds in a tiny bit to my theory of the Dark Mark--I think it is more than an identifier (it's a lousy identifier, as it seems to be invisible most of the time). I think the Death Eaters were the Inner Circle, the true believers, and not all followers of Voldemort *were* DEs. And I think the bond symbolized by the Mark is far more than it seems. I think it ties the Death Eaters to Voldemort for life and more; I think it likely that part of the bond is that if Voldemort dies, they all will, too. It seems his style, to demand such a commitment, and it would guarantee their support of him (you'd think), and it would be a very good reason for Snape to look pale or Dumbledore to look anxious at the end of book 4--even when you have known for years what you will do, and come to terms with what will happen, still, walking out the door to begin steps that will lead, if successful, to your own death, cannot be a thing one does lightly. This would also explain why Voldemort was so very, very, intensely peeved at the Death Eaters in his circle, berating them for leaving him to languish. If the Mark is indeed a bond to the death, they all would have *known* he was alive somewhere, simply because they weren't dead. And they didn't come looking for him. No *wonder* he's a bit irritated. Been a while since I aired this onlist, anybody who hasn't heard it before got any thoughts? --Amanda From david_p at istop.com Thu Mar 14 02:51:44 2002 From: david_p at istop.com (david_p2002ca) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 02:51:44 -0000 Subject: Ron's 'sight' In-Reply-To: <20020313181028.24364.qmail@web13501.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36481 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ms Lizard Gizzard wrote: > > It's not that I disagree, but could you offer some > evidence? I haven't seen any sign that Ron has any > talent in divination. But then, I haven't really > studied it. > > Liz Giz Virtually every throw-away comment Ron makes in the books turns out to be prescient. A couple of examples that immediately spring to mind: When asked why Tom Riddle was given a special award for services to the school (CoS), he replies something along the lines of "Maybe he killed Myrtle"; in fact, Tom used the basilisk to kill her. In GoF, when he and Harry make up their star charts, his includes a fight with a friend and his own death by drowning; shortly after, he and Harry split up over the Triwizard cup, and Ron is later taken away underwater by the mer-people. There are scads of others; had I more time I'd start skimming the archives. But rest assured, Ron has the Sight - and I'm sure he would deny it. David P. Re-re-re-re-re-reading in anticipation of OotP. From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Thu Mar 14 03:48:39 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 21:48:39 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron's 'sight' References: Message-ID: <3C901D97.F852E230@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36482 david_p2002ca wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ms Lizard Gizzard wrote: > > > > It's not that I disagree, but could you offer some > > evidence? I haven't seen any sign that Ron has any > > talent in divination. But then, I haven't really > > studied it. > > > > Liz Giz > > Virtually every throw-away comment Ron makes in the books turns out > to be prescient. A couple of examples that immediately spring to > mind: > > When asked why Tom Riddle was given a special award for services to > the school (CoS), he replies something along the lines of "Maybe he > killed Myrtle"; in fact, Tom used the basilisk to kill her. > > In GoF, when he and Harry make up their star charts, his includes a > fight with a friend and his own death by drowning; shortly after, he > and Harry split up over the Triwizard cup, and Ron is later taken > away underwater by the mer-people. > > There are scads of others; had I more time I'd start skimming the > archives. But rest assured, Ron has the Sight - and I'm sure he > would deny it. > In PoA, Ron predicts a windfall of money for Harry - Perhaps the Triwizard Tournament winnings? Another interesting one that I just found...Ron mentions an animal, and then Trelawney takes the tea cup away. Trelawney see a Grim: "The Grim, my dear, the Grim!" ... "The giant, spectral dog that haunts churchyards! My dear boy, it is an omen - ..." Now...a few pages later...while at lunch, Ron says: "Harry," ... "you haven't seen a great black dog anywhere, have you?" The interesting thing is that Ron says _black_ dog, where Trelawney never mentions a color. Also, I believe Ron was the first to suggest that Lockhart had not performed the exploits chronicled in his books. (CoS, Ch. 6, last line) He also made some statements regarding Percy and his job becoming more important than his family, but I don't remember which book it was in. There are a couple of more to add to the list... -Katze From bak42 at netzero.net Thu Mar 14 04:17:53 2002 From: bak42 at netzero.net (bak42) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:17:53 -0800 Subject: All things green Message-ID: <000101c1cb0f$36b27ea0$62023a41@bak42> No: HPFGUIDX 36483 1. Cover of Quidditch Through the Ages. (qtta cover) 2. Harpy robes are dark green with a golden talon on the chest. (qtta pg. 34) 3. The Kestrels wear emerald-green robes with two yellow "K"s back to back on the chest. (qtta pg. 35 4. The Welsh Green's eggs are an earthy brown, flecked with green (fb pg. 12) 5. The Longhorn has dark-green scales and long, glittering golden horns with which it gores its prey before roasting it. (fb pg. 14) Give my points to Hufflepuff. ------------------------------------------------------- Brandon 73% Obsessed with Harry Potter Earth: Mostly harmless --The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy "You know," said Ron, whose hair was on end because of all the times he had run his fingers through it in frustration, "I think it's back to the old Divination standby." "What -- make it up?" --Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.333 / Virus Database: 187 - Release Date: 3/8/02 ---------------------------------------------------- Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today Only $9.95 per month! http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97 From porphyria at mindspring.com Thu Mar 14 04:28:14 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 23:28:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DE Name Origin, & some Dark Mark Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36484 Amanda suggested: This is an interesting idea, but I have some hesitations about it. For one thing, after Voldemort disappeared it was disputed whether he was dead or not (according to what Hagrid explains to Harry). You would think that if Voldemort had informed all his Death Eaters that their lives depended on his welfare that it would have become more common knowledge over 10 years later that he must have still been alive. After all, there were former Death Eaters who were willing, for one reason or another, to tell what they knew about their situation: people like Karkaroff would give the MOM any information they were asked and there were several spies working for Dumbledore, not just Snape. So if the MOM had proof that Voldemort was still alive, I'm wondering why that would have been kept secret Also, when Voldemort confronts the Death Eaters in GoF, he at least implies that they might have thought he was dead: "And then I ask myself, but how could they have believed I would not rise again? They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard myself against mortal death?" Then he accuses them of paying allegiance to Dumbledore. It seems odd that he would suspect them of supporting someone they thought could defeat him if they all knew this would spell their own doom. I guess also I'd wonder why no other Death Eaters (besides, the Lestranges, Barty and the other guy) tried to seek out Voldemort after his disappeared. Surely, if they all thought their life depended on his that they'd be a little more concerned about his rotting away in Albania or whatever they imagined was going on. Voldemort's own name means stealing death (or flight of death). I thought Death Eater might have some similarity to that; it's both an embracing of death (maybe other people's?) and a conquering of death. It's certainly an enigmatic and evocative term. Oh, speaking of 'the other guy,' Elkins just wrote, regarding the Fourth Man is Avery theory: And why is my loyalty being impugned?!?!? All this time I have been happily imagining Avery slaving under Mrs. Lestrange's imperio, forced to polish her boots over and over and over...and *now* somehow there's not enough room for me in your kayak. Is your 'drove' of supporters so unwieldy that the prospect of increasing your ranks by 33 1/3% daunts you? Or am I just not bloodthirsty enough to fit in? Hmmmph. There's just no pleasing you Abject Neurotics. ;-) ~~Porphyria, still somehow landlocked. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From uncmark at yahoo.com Thu Mar 14 08:01:43 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:01:43 -0000 Subject: Concern for Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36485 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Mr_Boregard" wrote: > > I just wanted to voice a concern I had for our dear fiend Neville. > I was sitting up last night and i decided to rean through my copy > of ss. As i was reading a horrible thought struck me. > > As you know, history has a bad habit of repeating itself. > We know that Harry Ron and Hermione are a set trio and the best of > friends. We also know that Neville is often mixed up with the trio > and often ends up helping them out in one way or another. And > another thing we know is that the trio will stick up for Neville > when others are less than kind to him. > > I am scared that Neville will become the fourth member of the > group...(the weakest member emotionally and skill wise). > The question I pose is... is it possible that Neville will be lured > to the darkside like Pettigrew before him? > > It seems to me that there is a possible parallel between Neville > and Pettigrew. This may seem a little far-fetched but I wonder what > will happen to our hapless friend I have expressed my Neville theory before that there is more to him than anyone suspects. His absent-mindedness reminds me of Bertha Jorkins who was under a memory charm. We know Neville's parent's were tortured by the Cruciatus curse. What if some well-meaning wizard cast a memory charm on Nevulle to help him deal with the trauma? If the memory charm was removed in book 5, I believe Neville's abilities would improve. I go as far as to think Neville would search for a cure to his parent's insanity, possibly involving Herbology, his best subject. BTW I think the 4th member of the trio will most likely be Ginny, but we'll go into that another time. Uncmark From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com Thu Mar 14 08:41:04 2002 From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:41:04 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Upkeep - How big is the community? References: Message-ID: <005a01c1cb34$10a262a0$2b9cbc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 36486 Costs would be lower than at comparable muggle schools, as the physical plant has long since been amortized and much of the labor is provided by house elves. If they can support an entire complex Ministry of Magic, they can also suport a school! In that case, any ideas anyone on exactly how big the wizarding community within the UK is, or would need to be? It's an interesting point to ponder as magic can onloy do so much mending and organising within the school I suppose. The other idea, of endowments, is an excellent and feasible one, and would account in no small part for Hogwarts ability to furnish top quality education for its students. ** In connection with my query about the approx. size of the wizarding community. Having just returned to CoS for the first time in absolutely ages, I find that Mr Dursley DOES see large numbers of wizards all celebrating the demise of Voldemort and if these are just the *careless* ones that allow themselves to be seen, perhaps the wizard population is much greater than I, for one, had really considered. ** Felicia [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ecuamerican at hotmail.com Thu Mar 14 04:45:41 2002 From: ecuamerican at hotmail.com (ecuman24) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 04:45:41 -0000 Subject: The Wands of the Phoenix Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36487 The wands... to me, they are the single most cool thing about being a wizard (or a witch for the ladies). The wand has always held my attention because of its power, the power to radiate the magic of the person and concentrate the magic through this stick to be exerted outward. "But its the wand that chooses the wizard" says Olivander SS. Now I'll get straight to point...well rather the question... to you all out there who will respond. Why would the phoenix of Dumbledore give two feathers and one choosing the Dark Lord?? This seemingly peaceful bird of the greatest wizard of the time has given one of its feathers to be a wand for Voldemort. Not only that, the wand chose him! Why would it choose him?? Now Dumbledore said it was odd that Fawkes gave 2 feathers, the other being given to Harry of course (GoF). This also arises a new question...Why two feathers? The feathers and wands have been called brothers before. One is apparently evil and the other is apparently good. Now (and this is just off the wall and just came to me) in Greek mythology, at least, almost every time there were 2 brothers they always fought for kingship or other things. One brother would always overthrow the more deserving brother and fighting, quarreling, and/or war soon broke out (i.e the foster father of Jason and his brother; the sons of Oedipus after his death). Does one feather deserve to "be king" over the other? And other related questions I would like to pose is the fact that Fawkes and/or Dumbledore may be Animagus. After all Dumbledore did teach Transfiguration (CoS). And well, Fawkes is just as suspicious because of the feathers. I've learned reading these great stories to never forget that there are always reasons behind the reasons. There is a reason for everything and that reason always has a history. Never look at the obvious and declare it the truth. Your friendly neighborhood Ecuamerican. From pascalayla at yahoo.com.au Thu Mar 14 07:02:17 2002 From: pascalayla at yahoo.com.au (pascalayla) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 07:02:17 -0000 Subject: Ron, Dark Side? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36488 I, after reading the books, thought that Ron seemed quite ripe for picking for the dark side. He seems quite ambitious (the mirror incident in the first book of him being the head boy), and yet still very loyal. He doesn't listen to other people, (third book, scabbers incident), and in a huge family, is the only person who doesn't stand out. I know that some people in this group think Ron has the Sight, and that is quite likely, but not proved yet. I also found a two very good essays, one of which concentrates on Ron and whether he would turn to the dark side (http://www.angelfire.com/dc/ron_haters_united/otheropjlm.htm), and the other on Ron Hating. (http://www.angelfire.com/dc/ron_haters_united/wwhr.htm) And I have one small question about Death Eaters. In the fourth book, at the end, it almost seems like that Voldemort disregards all the female Death Eaters (assuming that there are any, and that assumption comes from Harry, who said to Draco at the beginning of the fourth book, about his parents being out on the field in black cloaks and masks, and what would he know about it). So are there any female death eaters? I couldn't find any other references to them in the GoF. Ayla Pascal From ruben at satec.es Thu Mar 14 07:15:04 2002 From: ruben at satec.es (elirtai) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 07:15:04 -0000 Subject: DE Name Origin, & some Dark Mark In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36489 When Amanda suggested the DE would know through the Dark Mark about Voldemort being alive, Porphyria wrote: > For one thing, after Voldemort disappeared it was disputed whether >he was dead or not (according to what Hagrid explains to Harry). You >would think that if Voldemort had informed all his Death Eaters that >their lives depended on his welfare that it would have become more >common knowledge over 10 years later that he must have still been >alive. After all, there were former Death Eaters who were willing, >for one reason or another, to tell what they knew about their >situation: people like Karkaroff would give the MOM any information >they were asked and there were several spies working for Dumbledore, >not just Snape. So if the MOM had proof that Voldemort was still >alive, I'm wondering why that would have been kept secret Now, it wasn't exactly a secret, was it? My impression on reading PS/SS was that most people were more than a little wary about Voldemort being alive, if bereft of most of his power, and most of them doubted whether he retained enough of his power to make a true comeback - this strikes me as the same kind of thought the DE's must have had by then. Some hints about this in the first book: - When they learnt of Voldemort's failure and disappearance, the wizarding world at large goes to celebrate thinking this is the end of the dark wizard. Ten years after, they're again afraid; they should have moved on but they still fear to say the name. In my opinion they still doubt, and hope their doubts never become real. It looks like there are enough rumors about him being alive. - Of course the spies don't go publishing their thought openly, so we have just rumors. We've seen (the Pensieve revelations in Gof) that information disclosed at the MoM court can't leak out. That probably accounts for Karkaroff and Snape and others. - Dumbledore removed the Stone from Gringotts where it was supposedly safe. He was genuinely concerned. I don't think a lot of people knew Snape was his spy (not Hagrid for example). - The layers of protection around the stone at Hogwarts weren't that hard to break - I always thought they looked more like a trap to lure Voldemort's servants. It might have worked too, if Dumbledore hadn't made one of his few mistakes by trusting Quirrell (by the way, the easy way in which he was led out of Hogwarts is not very realistic - I've read speculations about it, but I rather think JKR slipped. This was her first book after all! > Also, when Voldemort confronts the Death Eaters in GoF, he at least >implies that they might have thought he was dead: "And then I ask >myself, but how could they have believed I would not rise again? >They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard myself against >mortal death?" Then he accuses them of paying allegiance to >Dumbledore. It seems odd that he would suspect them of supporting >someone they thought could defeat him if they all knew this would >spell their own doom. The ones who really support Dumbledore (like Snape) probably think death's better than helping Voldemort return. Others must have hoped Voldemort would never truly return if they didn't help him, and the *best* possible situation for them was to maintain the impasse: V. is alive so they can keep living, but never so strong as to threaten them again. > I guess also I'd wonder why no other Death Eaters (besides, the >Lestranges, Barty and the other guy) tried to seek out Voldemort >after his disappeared. Surely, if they all thought their life >depended on his that they'd be a little more concerned about his >rotting away in Albania or whatever they imagined was going on. As Voldemort himself said, they knew he had learnt to guard himself against mortal death. Now a thought, could they hope to live forever through the dark mark too? Elirtai From gautam_ghosh at satyam.com Thu Mar 14 08:40:54 2002 From: gautam_ghosh at satyam.com (Gautam_Ghosh) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:10:54 +0530 Subject: Harry the heir of Salazar? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36490 Hi all, I am new here...so my apologies if I make some blunder while delurking... My first point is: 1. Could Harry be the heir of Slytherin himself? Hold on, lemme explain... [a] He can speak Parselmouth [b] He has a wand that's someway related to the wand of the person who wants to be Slytherin's heir himself....Voldy... [c] The fact that he was sorted into Gryffindor also has to do with the good-moral picture he has given to them versus the Slytherin's....could it be JKR's query about the ages-old psychological question..."is it nature or is it nurture" ? [d] He has pots of inherited money which is so far unaccounted ! I tend to think so because....as somebody mentioned recently, Malfoy was attracted by the power he sensed around Harry [a very Slytherin trait] and constantly tries to goad him to compare himself...? Ok, bouquets and brickbats welcome ;-)) Ciao, GG [who thought this was a great twist in the plot when I thought about it last night .....now, ....] From A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk Thu Mar 14 10:40:23 2002 From: A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk (edisbevan) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:40:23 -0000 Subject: Concern for Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36491 "uncmark" wrote: > I have expressed my Neville theory before that there is more to him > than anyone suspects. I have a totally uncanonical theory that Neville will turn out to be the real nemesis of YKWho, the real subject of the One True Prediction; and that the Potters were (voluntarily?)set up as a decoy to protect Neville - a decoy strategy that went horribly wrong. Another one of my theories is that JKR will come up with something completely different, but there we are... Edis From Ali at zymurgy.org Thu Mar 14 11:20:02 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:20:02 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts: a meritocracy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36492 I just thought I should explain my statement about acceptance to Hogwarts being based on merit. Of course, Harry (and all the other students) are put down for Hogwarts at birth. This means Hogwarts takes children on innate ability. It is this rather than money which means they can take up a place. I have used merit to mean "innate ability" - as opposed to money - which is arguably wrong, so sorry for any confusion. All children of magicing ability are invited to the school. If money was a deciding factor in whether they take up their place what would there be to stop a parent of guardian refusing to pay (as Uncle Vernon did) so that the child was then prevented from going? Harry's circumstances might be exceptional, but I am sure that other guardians would have refused to pay for tuition, even if they had stacks of money. Other children would surely not also discover that they had a vault load of money hidden under London? I believe that money for tuition does not change hands over Hogwarts. How is it funded then? Perhaps I will take up a seat on the fence: 1) Founding Endownment and 2) Wizarding tax and 3) Ongoing donations and perhaps some other form of fundraising - just because a school is state funded doesn't mean that it doesn't attract funds from other sources. My daughter's primary school is constantly getting (or trying to get) money. I can certainly imagine donations being used to bolster up services. Ali From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Mar 14 11:36:54 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:36:54 -0000 Subject: Concern for Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36493 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "edisbevan" wrote: > "uncmark" wrote: > > > I have expressed my Neville theory before that there is more to him > > than anyone suspects. I'm with memory-charm-theory.. Lockhart's reaction to his own backfired, but strong memory charm - well, he was acting quite a lot like Neville. Bertha Jorkins was another, also under memory charm. We have been told that a memory charm *can* be reversed by a powerful wizard. All Neville's problems have to do with forgetting something - there's nothing *else* wrong with him - only that he can't remember... But Neville's amnesia is oddly selective. He forgets the trap-stair. He occasionally forgets the password, but not always. He forgets a thing or two while backing - but never Trevor. Obviously he forgets nearly all about potions, but hardly nothing of herbs... He remembers what he's been told kindly and when he's been in good mood. If he's been yelled at(like in Potions with his Worst Fear, Snape) - he remembers nothing. I think his mind recalls his Parents' Being Tortured when ever someone yells, or asks him a question in a less kind tone... Poor boy is very sensitive. Neville is the LAST to turn into a Death Eater. He'd NEVER hurt anyone or anything. (unfortunately, Herbology seems to be one of the very few subjects that doesn't require such- Neville can't hurt poor little Hedgehogs by transfiguration...) From Joanne0012 at aol.com Thu Mar 14 11:39:34 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:39:34 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Upkeep - How big is the community? In-Reply-To: <005a01c1cb34$10a262a0$2b9cbc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36494 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Felicia Rickmann" wrote: > Costs would be lower than at comparable muggle > schools, as the physical plant has long since been amortized and much of the > labor is provided by house elves. If they can support an entire complex Ministry > of Magic, they can also suport a school! > > In that case, any ideas anyone on exactly how big the wizarding community within the UK is, or would need to be? It's an interesting point to ponder as magic can onloy do so much mending and organising within the school I suppose. There have been extensive and inconclusive discussions on this topic before, and I believe that there's a discussion buried somewhere in the Lexicon. Most would be circular for our purposes here, since they extrapolate from the number of students (in itself a dispute, of course). But the underlying point is that the number of students (whatever that is) is in direct proportion to the size of the wizarding community. Furthermore, since wizards live longer than muggles, the ratio of adults to children woudl be higher in the wizarding world than in the muggle world (Voldemort's effects excepted). So the ratio of supporting adults to supported students would be higher among wizards than among muggles for two reasons -- the longer lifespan, and the shorter number of years of education provided. From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Mar 14 12:00:49 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 07:00:49 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dark Mark and DEs (was:DE Name Origin, & some Dark Mark) Message-ID: <18d.4c96339.29c1eaf1@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36495 Amanda: > This feeds in a tiny bit to my theory of the Dark Mark--I think it is more > than an identifier (it's a lousy identifier, as it seems to be invisible > most of the time). I think the Death Eaters were the Inner Circle, the true > believers, and not all followers of Voldemort *were* DEs. And I think the > bond symbolized by the Mark is far more than it seems. I think it ties the > Death Eaters to Voldemort for life and more; I think it likely that part of > This 'How visible is the Dark Mark?' thing is a bit puzzling. My understanding is that the Marks have been invisible only since Voldy's fall. But I find it curious that Voldy examines Wormtail's arm for his ('It has come back') in the graveyard, when Snape's and Karkaroff's have been visible for some time. It seem to be visible in the latter two cases because Voldy is regaining strength, not because he is summoning them: that only happens when he touches Wormtail's Mark. That implies to me that during his ascendency, they were *always* visible, which as others have pointed out is an identifier, not just to each other, but to the Aurors. Is being a DE in itself a crime? I suppose they might need evidence of an actual crime being committed in order to convict, but I can't see the MoM letting anyone bearing Voldy's Mark on his arm walk free. I totally agree, though, with your opinion of the DEs as the inner circle, the true supporters of Voldy. I'm slightly worried about George and Diana's opinions on this, but as Diana's spokesperson, I think it is consistent with her view of Snape that he would not sit on the fence in any way. In for a Knut, in for a Galleon, and all that. Amanda It seems his style, to demand such a commitment, and it would guarantee > their support of him (you'd think), and it would be a very good reason for > Snape to look pale or Dumbledore to look anxious at the end of book 4--even > when you have known for years what you will do, and come to terms with what > will happen, still, walking out the door to begin steps that will lead, if > Ooh, Amanda....you've made me go all quivery. I might have to go and lie down for a bit. I wonder if Elkins still has that brandy? > This would also explain why Voldemort was so very, very, intensely peeved at > the Death Eaters in his circle, berating them for leaving him to languish. > If the Mark is indeed a bond to the death, they all would have *known* he > was alive somewhere, simply because they weren't dead. And they didn't come > looking for him. No *wonder* he's a bit irritated. > Yes. Exactly. A Good Theory. Even if it is rather disconcerting for us Snape fans. Porphyria comments: ( this was originally in italics - I hope they won't return - apologies if they do) >For one thing, after Voldemort disappeared it was disputed whether he was dead or >not (according to what Hagrid explains to Harry). You would think that if Voldemort >had informed all his Death Eaters that their lives depended on his welfare that it >would have become more common knowledge over 10 years later that he must >have still been alive. After all, there were former Death Eaters who were willing, for >one reason or another, to tell what they knew about their situation: people like >Karkaroff would give the MOM any information they were asked and there were >several spies working for Dumbledore, not just Snape. So if the MOM had proof that >Voldemort was still alive, I'm wondering why that would have been kept secret Eloise: Well, the DEs would thus have reason for not going as far as betraying Voldy himself. If they think that he *could* be killed, then they would be condemning themselves to death with him, wouldn't they? How tempting for the Ministry if they thought they could get rid of Voldy *and* the DEs in one fell swoop. Dumbledore knew that Voldy was alive - he still had spies at work - (one of them later informed him that he was hiding in Albania). Sirius, IIRC, and Hagrid certainly never believed he was dead. I'm sure that the Ministry, or at least elements in the Ministry, must have acknowledged this. But the thing was, he was powerless. The Ministry doesn't seem to have anticipated that he could regain his powers. This certainly seems to be Fudge's line. They didn't want to believe it, they didn't want to alarm people and upset the status quo (as Dumbledore points out in the feast at the end of GoF). As far as they were concerned he was as good as dead. I think the DEs thought that too. Porphyria: >Also, when Voldemort confronts the Death Eaters in GoF, he at least implies that >they might have thought he was dead: "And then I ask myself, but how could they >have believed I would not rise again? They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to >guard myself against mortal death?" Then he accuses them of paying allegiance to >Dumbledore. It seems odd that he would suspect them of supporting someone they >thought could defeat him if they all knew this would spell their own doom. Eloise: I don't think rising again implies rising from the dead. I read it as, 'They knew I couldn't be dead, how could they think I wouldn't regain my powers?' But I agree with your second point, which is more or less what I said above. On the other hand, if apparently no-one knew where he was, then even Dumbledore couldn't harm him. Porphyria: >I guess also I'd wonder why no other Death Eaters (besides, the Lestranges, Barty >and the other guy) tried to seek out Voldemort after his disappeared. Surely, if they >all thought their life depended on his that they'd be a little more concerned about >his rotting away in Albania or whatever they imagined was going on. Eloise: They may have anticipated that he *could* be returned to power, but perhaps by then they too had had enough - except for the absolute fanatics like the Lestranges and Crouch. Otherwise, yes, they should have sought him out. The only reasons I can think of for not doing so are either that they thought he could no longer give them anything or that they no longer wanted to be in his power. Elirtai: >As Voldemort himself said, they knew he had learnt to guard himself >against mortal death. Now a thought, could they hope to live forever >through the dark mark too? Nice one! I like that. Yes...Voldy out of the way, but just alive enough to guarantee them eternal life. Why go to the trouble of bringing him back? You know, I'm almost beginning to feel sorry for him. Eloise (still basking in the glow of Elkins' praise for her Moody/Imperius theory. Thank you! And Jennifer, too!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Mar 14 12:04:26 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:04:26 -0000 Subject: Where was Snape? In-Reply-To: <20020314012559.21700.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36496 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > Where was Snape the night Quirrell was trying to steal > the stone? Isn't it he knows somebody (Quirrell) is > trying to steal it? Why was he not as protective of > the stone as the trio? Does he really want Voldemort > to have the stone, after all, pretending that he's > trying to stop Quirrell so that nobody (including > Quirrell) will suspect him? He has no loyalty to anyone but *himself* (I am under the impression Snape is a psychopath... Hating someone not *despite* that someone saving your life but *because* of it?). He was protecting Harry (despite hating him) - because by doing so, he's paying the debt he owes to Harry's father and he hates being in that life-debt. I don't think he wanted Quirrell to have the stone - I think he wanted it for himself! To give to Voldemort or to keep - I know not. From editor at texas.net Thu Mar 14 12:28:51 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 06:28:51 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Where was Snape? References: Message-ID: <002901c1cb53$cd74ea00$c57663d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36497 Finwitch said, about Snape, > He was protecting Harry (despite hating him) - because by doing so, > he's paying the debt he owes to Harry's father and he hates being in > that life-debt. May I throw out for general consideration, the following: to a degree, the above is in the same league with "Snape wants the DADA position." The source is better: Dumbledore rather than Percy. However, it *is* still hearsay, not spoken by Snape himself, ever. Given when Dumbledore said it, I suspect it is a half-truth and there's more to Snape's motivations. That was probably the most obvious, the best one to give to an eleven-year-old after a truly frightening experience, and the easiest one for an eleven-year-old to understand. Also, from an author's point of view, this is Book One, she's not going to hand us everything about Snape's motivations here. Hah. Any time I start to notice us taking something as a total fact, taken completely for granted, I get suspicious. JKR is soooo good at planting those things and nurturing them without us noticing. > I don't think he wanted Quirrell to have the stone - I think he wanted > it for himself! To give to Voldemort or to keep - I know not. Have you any basis for this? This in intriguing; of all the Snape theories, that he really *was* trying to get the Stone for Voldemort isn't one I've seen (maybe I've just not been paying attention). I don't think Snape is a psychopath--I think he's simply had to consider so many other things on so much more major a level than Potions exams that most everything else seems irrelevant. He's nasty, mean, and spiteful sort of by habit, to pass the time; I don't think we've seen any genuine emotion out of him except in the intense scenes dealing with Harry (Shack, office, etc.). Still, it is a fact that if you ignore the delivery system (nasty, mean, spiteful, etc.), the product that Snape delivers most often is protection. How is this reconciled with your thought? --Amanda, curious From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Mar 14 12:50:04 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 07:50:04 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape the sneak/Slytherins/rule breaking(was: Snape/Luc Message-ID: <130.adeb746.29c1f67c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36498 In a message dated 13/03/02 16:05:56 GMT Standard Time, rusalka at ix.netcom.com writes: > > Back on the subject of Slytherin, one of the characteristics > favoured by > > Slytherin himself (according to Dumbledore) was a certain lack of > respect for > > rules. Not a characterisic of Snape, apparently (other than going > out of > > bounds to follow Lupin). > > I'm sure becoming a Death Eater broke a rule somewhere. I suspect > Snape's current obsession with rule-following is a bit of > overcompensation. > Being a DE? That little matter? I overlooked that moment of weakness :-) ! I was really referring to his behaviour at school. If Sirius is to be believed, his fondness for getting rule breakers into trouble goes back a long way. I assume he was a right little creep. It got me wondering about how much rule breaking we see in the series. I think *most* of what we see done by Gryffindors. Obviously, we're seeing it from Harry's POV, but it seems to be the trio who keep losing house points for rule breaking. And then the twins and James/Sirius are the notorious school trouble makers of their days. We see lots of nasty behaviour from the Slytherins, but less in the way of actul rule-breaking. I can recall one case of Draco using magic in the corridors, no, that's two, isn't it? And then the time he gets punished for being out of bounds when he sneaks on them about Norbert ( which parallels Snape's going out of bounds to follow Lupin). I guess they're too sneaky to keep making trouble in such an obvious way. Another thing intrigues me about Slytherins. As you so poetically pointed out, Snape 'hangs out in a dungeon that a nicer chap would wither in / it doesn't bother him at all because he is a Slytherin'. The Slytherin common room is a long, low underground room with rough stone walls. Why? Surely these self-seeking, ambitious types would relish a bit of comfort, think it was their due, even. I know it suits Snape's gothic image (and I still want to install an organ down there for him!), but are we to believe that Malfoy Manor is quite so spartan? I suppose someone's going to tell me it's supposed to be character building. Eloise, who'd like to see what Lawrence Llewelyn Bowen would do with the Slytherin common room ( he's a rather flamboyant British TV interior designer, with more than a passing resemblance to the film Snape, not least in dress sense). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Mar 14 13:33:27 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:33:27 -0000 Subject: Where was Snape? In-Reply-To: <002901c1cb53$cd74ea00$c57663d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36499 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda" wrote: > Finwitch said, about Snape, > > I don't think he wanted Quirrell to have the stone - I think he wanted > > it for himself! To give to Voldemort or to keep - I know not. > > Have you any basis for this? This in intriguing; of all the Snape theories, > that he really *was* trying to get the Stone for Voldemort isn't one I've > seen (maybe I've just not been paying attention). Competition. Should Voldemort return (and Voldemort *was* there) - Any who'd produced the stone would have been the FIRST among death-eaters. We do know about Harry's scar - during Potion's exam it burned. Quirrell wasn't there (and wasn't killing anyone) - so it had to do with Voldemort (who might have been going with Snape for a chance). I don't think Snape is a > psychopath--I think he's simply had to consider so many other things on so > much more major a level than Potions exams that most everything else seems > irrelevant. He's nasty, mean, and spiteful sort of by habit, to pass the > time; I don't think we've seen any genuine emotion out of him except in the > intense scenes dealing with Harry (Shack, office, etc.). -Lack of emotion (particularly one of caring) is characteristic to psychopaths. It is one of the main reasons I think that of Snape. -Things that applied to normal person would assist to smooth things over, work just opposite to psychopaths - hating his lifesaver *more*? -No conscience, no empathy. (Ever seen Snape regret anything?) -Ambition (EVERY Slytherin is - that's why they're sorted there!) -good at cheating -like to make all unacceptable things seem to be the fault of their "enemies" (Snape *does* do that. Why did he blame *Harry* for Neville's first accident in Potions? It's *his* job to assure the potions are securedly made, not that of another students!) - How opinions are divided into two about the person... - Being ruthless. Note: One thing doesn't yet count, but Snape has too many of them as I'm interpreting it! > Still, it is a fact that if you ignore the delivery system (nasty, mean, > spiteful, etc.), the product that Snape delivers most often is protection. > How is this reconciled with your thought? Duty. Rules. Importance of Life-Debt(both making debtors to him - and paying his *own* debt to JP). Gaining and keeping the trust of the boss. Keeping good face to his superiors. From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Mar 14 13:46:41 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:46:41 -0000 Subject: Where was Snape? In-Reply-To: <002901c1cb53$cd74ea00$c57663d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36500 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda" wrote: > Finwitch said, about Snape, > > > He was protecting Harry (despite hating him) - because by doing so, > > he's paying the debt he owes to Harry's father and he hates being in > > that life-debt. > > May I throw out for general consideration, the following: to a degree, the > above is in the same league with "Snape wants the DADA position." The source > is better: Dumbledore rather than Percy. However, it *is* still hearsay, not > spoken by Snape himself, ever. Given when Dumbledore said it, I suspect it > is a half-truth and there's more to Snape's motivations. And in fact we later learn that Snape hated James before James saved his life, so it can't be accurate to say Snape hates him because of it. I think the Prank did increase Snape's hatred, by forcing him to feel indebted to an enemy -- something he obviously resents. My own theory on PS/SS is that Dumbledore allowed Harry to confront Quirrel/Voldy for his own reasons; so Snape wasn't there because Dumbledore held him off. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From jklb66 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 14 13:52:34 2002 From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:52:34 -0000 Subject: Divination/ Harry or Ron's death In-Reply-To: <003f01c1cab3$2d934ef0$a920a4d5@satec.es> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36501 Ok, for the most part, Trelawney is, a fraud. Her technique is primarily predicting what she believes is likely to happen (clumsy, nervous Neville breaking a cup, Buckbeak being executed, Harry getting killed by Sirius Black or in the Triwizard Tournament) and doing so in a "spooky" voice. However, that doesn't rule out the fact that she is often right. In addition to the 2 "true predictions" she makes while in trances, we have the following: Throughout PoA, she keeps seeing a "grim" in Harry's future. Well, there isn't a grim, but there certainly is a large, black dog. If she had just called it a dog instead of a grim, we'd all be patting her on the back right now. She also predicts that, "Around Easter, one of our number will leave us forever." I don't believe that Trelawney had any idea that Hermione would quit the class, but that doesn't change the fact that she did. And one prediction that bothers me: in PoA, at Christmas dinner, Trelawney is reluctant to sit at the table because, "Never forget that when thirteen dine together, the first to rise will be the first to die!" At the end of dinner "Harry and Ron got up first from the table and she shreiked loudy. 'My dears! Which of you left his seat first? Which?' 'Dunno,' said Ron looking uneasily at Harry." Many of us have predicted that either Ron or Harry will not survive book 7, and here is Trelawney predicting the same thing. And if we believe she is correct, then we can assume that either Ron or Harry will die before anyone else at that dinner table (Dumbledore, McGonagall, Snape, Hermione). Jennifer, who is very worried for Harry and Ron From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Mar 14 14:02:59 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:02:59 -0000 Subject: Snape the sneak/Slytherins/rule breaking(was: Snape/Luc In-Reply-To: <130.adeb746.29c1f67c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36502 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > The Slytherin common room is a long, low underground room with rough stone > walls. > Why? Surely these self-seeking, ambitious types would relish a bit of > comfort, think it was their due, even. Perhaps the common room was decorated by Snape in keeping with his idea of the proper Slytherin image (or just in keeping with his personal taste), while the actually dorm rooms are cushier. As for Malfoy manor, I suspect it's very cushy and expensive, but with an unpleasantly somber color scheme. > I know it suits Snape's gothic image > (and I still want to install an organ down there for him!) But not a pink flamingo? > Eloise, who'd like to see what Lawrence Llewelyn Bowen would do with the > Slytherin common room ( he's a rather flamboyant British TV interior > designer, with more than a passing resemblance to the film Snape, not least > in dress sense). Great; now I have mental image of Snape sweeping into the staff room crying, "Oh, I just saw the most *marvelous* window treatment!" Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Mar 14 14:24:23 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:24:23 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Where was Snape? Message-ID: <50.80ca970.29c20c97@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36503 > He has no loyalty to anyone but *himself* (I am under the impression > Snape is a psychopath... Hating someone not *despite* that someone > We Snapefans aren't going to let that go in a hurry. But then you knew that, didn't you? Now the last time you accused poor Severus of being a psycopath, Judy, who seems to know what she's talking about wrote a nice little piece explaining how he didn't fit the profile. I don't know the message no, but it was on March 6th. I don't see the big deal about Snape hating James because he saved him. He *hated* James, James has imposed a life debt on him (I tend not to go round hating people, but I know I'd far rather be in debt to someone I loved than someone I hated) and then he's gone and got himself killedso that Snape *can't* repay the blasted debt. You bet he's furious at James. It's logical. (Guess that meakes me a psycopath too!) H > e was protecting Harry (despite hating him) - because by doing so, > he's paying the debt he owes to Harry's father and he hates being in > that life-debt. > Exactly. See above. > I don't think he wanted Quirrell to have the stone - I think he wanted > it for himself! To give to Voldemort or to keep - I know not. Here, I don't follow you. So why wasn't he there, trying to prevent Quirell getting to the stone - the point of the original question? (One, now I think of it that I raised in my very first post). Yes, in my worst nightmare scenario, when my boggart Snape advances as an unrepentant DE (only to have his wand turn into a rubber kipper as he trips over his billowing robes), he's been protecting Harry to present him to Voldy. But not when I'm feeling sane. It feels wrong to me that he just disappears from the story at that point. He has to, I suppose, for the sake of the plot - it's essential that we expect Snape to be in the chamber with the stone, but it still feels *wrong*. I suppose in a one-off book, he probably would have been revealed as Harry's ally at the last moment, but given the nature of the series, his motives have to remain ambiguous. Similarly, he could have been the one to save Harry from Voldy rather than Dumbledore, except then we would know unequivocally that Voldy knew Snape's position. So I think his disappearance is plot-driven. But I can't for the life of me think how outside of plot-considerations I would account for his absence. I'm *sure* he knew Dumbledore was away - he's too pivotal a figure at Hogwarts not to. He pretty well knew the trio were up to something as well. He knew Quirell was after the stone. His absence doesn't make sense - UNLESS Quirell got to him first. That's it! He stunned him, or hexed him or stuck one of his own potions in his pumpkin juice (what a useful device pumpkin juice is becoming) or something. There. Reputation saved. And all in the time it took to print off my essay. I feel an acronym coming on. S.U.C.C.E.S.S. (Snape Unfortunately Concussed Couldn't Ensure Stone's Safety). Eloise. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Mar 14 14:26:22 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:26:22 -0000 Subject: Snape the sneak/Slytherins/rule breaking(was: Snape/Luc In-Reply-To: <130.adeb746.29c1f67c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36504 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > In a message dated 13/03/02 16:05:56 GMT Standard Time, rusalka at i... > writes: > I was really referring to his behaviour at school. If Sirius is to be > believed, his fondness for getting rule breakers into trouble goes back a > long way. I assume he was a right little creep. Even if it means he broke the rules himself! Like getting into that Shrieking Shack (for no other reason than to make Gryffindors lose points MORE than he would have...) > It got me wondering about how much rule breaking we see in the series. I > think *most* of what we see done by Gryffindors. Obviously, we're seeing it > from Harry's POV, but it seems to be the trio who keep losing house points > for rule breaking. And then the twins and James/Sirius are the notorious > school trouble makers of their days. > We see lots of nasty behaviour from the Slytherins, but less in the way of > actul rule-breaking. I can recall one case of Draco using magic in the > corridors, no, that's two, isn't it? You think stealing Neville's Remembrall is not rule-breaking? It brokes rule against taking another's property AND the 'rule' of not moving until Madame Hooch got back? At this point Harry's doing what's RIGHT, standing up for the absent House-mate. (Not Easy, But Right) He did try talking first, but when it didn't work, he could only fly. Malfoy just was better at *not getting caught*. Following rules means safety - being brave often doesn't. Also, only time Harry broke rules for *no good reason* - was when he wasn't treated the same as others because he lacked caring parents. This offended him because he was denied something that others had for *granted*. He may have thought he wanted Hogsmeade, but didn't. He wanted to be like others AND to have caring parents. Nothing hurts him more than reminder of his parents' death. School Rule demanding a signature he can't get because he lives on his own... (Dursleys don't count as his Guardians, and never did, not to Harry). He also tried to do it nicely first by asking Head of House - since Gryffindor *was* his true family - but then he's told it's not a Family, against what he was told during the first year by McGonagall? This is understandable. Harry's singled out. It is a protest for all mistreated orphans etc. I object more to the way he treated Neville than his going. But for most of the time, if Harry breaks a school rule, it's to follow another, more important one.. The Bravery-rules: 1) Saving the World 2) Saving someone's life (Hermione, Sirius) 3) Benefit of doubt, Right to fair trial... (Malfoy(who knew nothing of CoS), Sirius, Buckbeak). Even a Slytherin may be creditor! 4) Helping someone in need(Mostly Neville) Lots of others about doing Right&Risky instead of Easy&Safe... And then the time he gets punished for > being out of bounds when he sneaks on them about Norbert ( which parallels > Snape's going out of bounds to follow Lupin). I guess they're too sneaky to > keep making trouble in such an obvious way. Yeah - they themselves do *what ever it takes* to gain their goal. They're also *not getting caught*, and they're *making others take the blame*. The latter is something a Gryffindor would NOT do. Slytherin strategy to win the House Cup is luring others to break the rules and turn them in so that THEY lose points and Slytherin possibly gains for reporting. Gryffindor simply won't DO that (except by accident). > Another thing intrigues me about Slytherins. As you so poetically pointed > out, Snape 'hangs out in a dungeon that a nicer chap would wither in / it > doesn't bother him at all because he is a Slytherin'. > The Slytherin common room is a long, low underground room with rough stone > walls. > Why? Surely these self-seeking, ambitious types would relish a bit of > comfort, think it was their due, even. I know it suits Snape's gothic image > (and I still want to install an organ down there for him!), but are we to > believe that Malfoy Manor is quite so spartan? I suppose someone's going to > tell me it's supposed to be character building. They may have a sneaky reason for it - Common Room may be Spartan, but the Dorms and Bathrooms luxury. From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Mar 14 14:33:37 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:33:37 -0000 Subject: Divination/ Harry or Ron's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36505 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jklb66" wrote: > And one prediction that bothers me: in PoA, at Christmas dinner, > Trelawney is reluctant to sit at the table because, "Never forget > that when thirteen dine together, the first to rise will be the first > to die!" At the end of dinner "Harry and Ron got up first from the > table and she shreiked loudy. 'My dears! Which of you left his seat > first? Which?' 'Dunno,' said Ron looking uneasily at Harry." Many of > us have predicted that either Ron or Harry will not survive book 7, > and here is Trelawney predicting the same thing. And if we believe > she is correct, then we can assume that either Ron or Harry will die > before anyone else at that dinner table (Dumbledore, McGonagall, > Snape, Hermione). > > Jennifer, who is very worried for Harry and Ron Ron might be the one emotionally close Harry who is to die in book #5! From ruben at satec.es Thu Mar 14 14:23:15 2002 From: ruben at satec.es (ruben at satec.es) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:23:15 +0100 Subject: Divination / Harry or Ron's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005b01c1cb63$c88eb100$a920a4d5@satec.es> No: HPFGUIDX 36506 Jennifer said: [snip] > And one prediction that bothers me: in PoA, at Christmas dinner, > Trelawney is reluctant to sit at the table because, "Never forget > that when thirteen dine together, the first to rise will be the first > to die!" At the end of dinner "Harry and Ron got up first from the > table and she shreiked loudy. 'My dears! Which of you left his seat > first? Which?' 'Dunno,' said Ron looking uneasily at Harry." Many of > us have predicted that either Ron or Harry will not survive book 7, > and here is Trelawney predicting the same thing. Not the same thing actually. She merely predicted (in case that was a true prediction) that one of them would die before anyone else in the table. That might happen after book 7... Let's see. Dumbledore is the eldest (he's 150); we know wizards have long life spans, but not how long. I think it's safe to assume he hasn't much longer left, though, since he seems to be the oldest wizard around. But he's healthy and he needs to live for only four more years to be outside the scope of the books. Just nitpicking actually; I don't think JKR would drop something like this unless it's significant. And Harry or Ron will probably die before the series end. But hey... > Jennifer, who is very worried for Harry and Ron ...now you can hope. Dumbledore might live fifty more years :-) Elirtai From ruben at satec.es Thu Mar 14 12:42:01 2002 From: ruben at satec.es (ruben at satec.es) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:42:01 +0100 Subject: Concern for Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005701c1cb55$a460f1c0$a920a4d5@satec.es> No: HPFGUIDX 36507 Finwitch just said: > All Neville's problems have to do with forgetting something - there's > nothing *else* wrong with him - only that he can't remember... He's also quite clumsy. But then, so am I :-) Now seriously - a botched memory charm would be a good explanation to his behaviour. It's been used quite convincingly by some fanfic authors, too. Not that it matters here. The reasons why he got the charm aren't that clear to me - the most obvious reason would be to help him get over the trauma of the DE attack on his parents. But just think - he visits his parents regularly and we assume he knows what happened to them. It wouldn't have been *right* keeping that from him. If you want to spare a small child some of the suffering, but don't really want him to *forget*, wouldn't you use a less definitive method? Such as we do in 'real' life without magic? Any other ideas? Did something else happen, which he absolutely *had* to forget? Did some DE put the charm on him so he wouldn't remember *something*? They wouldn't have felt compelled to be overly careful about it. If he ever gets his memory back - will we learn something important? Some other thoughts: Neville's innate magic ability took quite long to surface, and it only appeared under danger of death. Could a bungled memory charm have affected his ability to react with spontaneous magic to adverse situations? Or maybe the innate degree of magic is not the same for everyone? It was quite evident in Harry's case... Last but not least, why do people think Neville is weak? He's too shy, owing to his memory problems, but I see him as a strong character once he gets over that. And he has an excellent reason to oppose Voldemort - he knows first hand the kind of world Voldemort wants. Elirtai, who doesn't think Neville will ever become a DE. From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu Mar 14 14:42:20 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:42:20 -0000 Subject: Clodhopping Plot Cliches (WAS Snape's spying career) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36508 David wrote: >I don't believe JKR > intends do anything so obvious as send Snape back to Voldemort. >That > would be up there with Harry being the last descendent of Gryffindor, > or Harry's blood vitiating Voldemort's powers, or Pettigrew diving in > front of V's last blast at Harry, for clodhopping plot cliche. Sorry to be so late in responding to this post, but David got me thinking. There must be many things that JKR could do in the next three books that are so trite and so stunningly obvious that they rise to the level of the Clodhopping Plot Cliche. But what are they? JKR has already ruled out the Star Wars "Luke, I'm your father" plot twist. One possible cliche could be Peter's silver hand and its potential to kill Lupin. Pretty darn obvious, that. On the other hand, how can JKR avoid using Peter's hand in this fashion? She certainly set it up, after all. Won't we be terribly disappointed if nothing comes of it? Are there other potential Clodhopping Plot Cliches? Snape as vampire? Snape returns to spying? On a related topic, are we in agreement that there weren't many Clodhopping Plot Cliches in the first 4 books? I can't think of any at the moment, which gives me some comfort that JKR won't sink to using obvious cliches in the last three books. Thoughts? Cindy (who desperately wants Professor Trelawney and her Inner Eye to start dating Moody and his Magical Eye) From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Mar 14 14:55:07 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:55:07 -0000 Subject: Where was Snape? In-Reply-To: <50.80ca970.29c20c97@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36509 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > > > He has no loyalty to anyone but *himself* (I am under the impression > > Snape is a psychopath... Hating someone not *despite* that someone > > > > We Snapefans aren't going to let that go in a hurry. But then you knew that, > didn't you? Now the last time you accused poor Severus of being a psycopath, > Judy, who seems to know what she's talking about wrote a nice little piece > explaining how he didn't fit the profile. I don't know the message no, but it > was on March 6th. > I don't see the big deal about Snape hating James because he saved him. He > *hated* James, James has imposed a life debt on him (I tend not to go round > hating people, but I know I'd far rather be in debt to someone I loved than > someone I hated) and then he's gone and got himself killedso that Snape > *can't* repay the blasted debt. You bet he's furious at James. It's logical. > (Guess that meakes me a psycopath too!) It's one trait - but well, it takes more. Compared to Hermione (who wasn't exactly in good terms with Ron&Harry) whose relationship turned into friendship over the two boys saving her... Does Snape *care* for anyone? From adatole at yahoo.com Thu Mar 14 11:01:55 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (adatole) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:01:55 -0000 Subject: Generational Parallel Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36510 (Usual disclaimers about being new, not finding in old posts, please don't hurt me, etc) I have read in other places comments on the parallels between James Potter's "generation" and Harry's. The ones that come immediately to mind: Harry and James share skill in Quidditch Neville and Peter are the overweight and "under-achieving" members of the group Harry/James and Ron/Sirius are best friends, and are often getting into trouble Hermione and Lupin have physiological changes on a monthly basis which affect their mood, outlook, etc. And this change is tied to the lunar cycle. (for Lupin, this is of course based on canon. While I certainly don't expect JKR to get into menstruation in the books I don't think is not a stretch to see the connection). Of course, there is the major plot point that Voldemort presented a threat to both generations, with a focus on the Potters. With JKR's focus on "Your choices make you who you are" I personally discount the current theorizing of Neville's "predesitnation" to turn to the dark side. But I was wondering if there were any other connections that I've missed along the way? Thanks as always Leon From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com Thu Mar 14 15:05:19 2002 From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:05:19 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DE Name Origin, & some Dark Mark Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36511 >From: "Amanda" "I think the Death Eaters were the Inner Circle, the true believers, and not all followers of Voldemort *were* DEs. And I think the bond symbolized by the Mark is far more than it seems. I think it ties the Death Eaters to Voldemort for life and more; I think it likely that part of the bond is that if Voldemort dies, they all will, too." I don't know about the whole 'if Voldemort dies, they all will, too' portion of your theory, but I do like that the Dark Mark is more than just a gang tattoo. Suppose, for example, that the idea of being a Death Eater is that you have indeed offered to 'eat' a portion of Voldemort's 'death.' Wouldn't this give us a very good reason that the rebounded AK that should have killed Harry didn't entirely kill LV? A portion of that power was siphoned off to each of his most loyal, inner circle, and he just lost his body without actually being destroyed. J _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From jklb66 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 14 15:04:40 2002 From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:04:40 -0000 Subject: Where was Snape? In-Reply-To: <50.80ca970.29c20c97@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36512 In regards to why Snape wasn't around to protect the Stone when Dumbledore was away, Eloise wrote: > So I think his disappearance is plot-driven. But I can't for the >life of me think how outside of plot-considerations I would account >for his absence. I'm *sure* he knew Dumbledore was away - he's too >pivotal a figure at Hogwarts not to. He pretty well knew the trio >were up to something as well. He knew Quirell was after the stone. >His absence doesn't make sense - UNLESS Quirell got to him first. >That's it! He stunned him, or hexed him or stuck one of his > own potions in his pumpkin juice (what a useful device pumpkin >juice is becoming) or something. > > There. Reputation saved. And all in the time it took to print off >my essay. > > I feel an acronym coming on. S.U.C.C.E.S.S. (Snape Unfortunately >Concussed Couldn't Ensure Stone's Safety). Wonderful, Eloise! Yes, Snape DID know that something was up and that Harry & pals would probably do something stupid and risk their necks to save the Stone. After all, that very afternoon, Snape says, "You want to be more careful....Hanging around like this, people will think you are up to something....Be warned, Potter-- any more nighttime wanderings and I will personally make sure you are expelled. Good day to you." This is almost warm and fuzzy for Severus. In his own inimitable way, Snape is trying to keep the trio safe and sound inside their common room that evening. So, back to the original question, why isn't Snape guarding the Stone personally? I can't believe it was for an "evil" reason (I admire the nasty b*****d too much) so I like your theory. Quirrell, knowing that Snape was a threat, took him out earlier in the evening with a stunning spell, a sleeping potion, or something similar. S.U.C.C.E.S.S. rules! -Jennifer "Yes, Severus does seem the type, doesn't he? So useful to have him swooping around like an overgrown bat." From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Mar 14 15:26:56 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:26:56 -0000 Subject: DE Name Origin, & some Dark Mark In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36513 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jake Storm" wrote: > Suppose, for example, that the idea of being a Death Eater is that you have > indeed offered to 'eat' a portion of Voldemort's 'death.' Wouldn't this give > us a very good reason that the rebounded AK that should have killed Harry > didn't entirely kill LV? A portion of that power was siphoned off to each of > his most loyal, inner circle, and he just lost his body without actually > being destroyed. > I like that theory. A part of Snape died because of Harry... Explains a bit of his hating Harry during the Sorting Feast. Also - There were Snape and Quirrell and that Voldemort-head, when Harry had his first experience of a hurting scar. No mention of it when in Quirrell's presence in the Leaky Cauldron. First time is Snape AND Quirrell. Snape is *looking* at Harry when the scar hurts first time! I think it took both for a chance. Later, it took one of them - Harry's scar hurt in Potion's exam... There is, I think, a lot more about Harry's scar... Maybe it'll now burn around Death-Eaters, too? Poor Harry, he won't be able to take potions without getting a head-ache... From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Mar 14 15:28:42 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:28:42 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and the Evil Overlord Rules Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36514 Prompted by office-induced boredom, I've decided to look up the Evil Overlord Rules and see how Voldy is doing in relation to them. So far he's only broken a few, but his actions have been severely limited until recently, so who knows what he'll do in the future? The full list is at http://quoll.uwaterloo.ca/mine/overlord.html Here are the ones I found Voldy breaking; maybe others can spot more. 4. Shooting is not too good for my enemies. 6. I will not gloat over my enemies' predicament before killing them. 34. I will not turn into a snake. It never helps. 104. My undercover agents will not have tattoos identifying them as members of my organization, nor will they be required to wear military boots or adhere to any other dress codes. Mind you, the rules are not completely relieable. Voldemort apparently attempted to follow rule 101 -- I will not order my trusted lieutenant to kill the infant who is destined to overthrow me. I'll do it myself. -- and look where it got him. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From trog at wincom.net Thu Mar 14 15:18:41 2002 From: trog at wincom.net (talondg) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:18:41 -0000 Subject: Death Eater Modus Operendi Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36515 Some thoughts on how the Death Eaters operated back when Voldy was at his height. Some things we know: 1) The DEs are a secret society, ostensibly secret even from each other. Only Voldy knows the complete roll of the DEs. 2) There aren't all that many of them; a couple dozen at the most. This means that, when compared to the size of the greater wizarding community, they are greatly outnumbered. 3) Every wizard is _armed_ - that wand is the wizarding equivelant of a firearm, and all wizards have had some measure of training in its use as a weapon. The skill of the average wizard in DATBA will vary quite a bit, and the DE's willingness/ability to use Forbidden Curses is an advantage in a straight-up fight, but the fact remains that attacking any wizard is a hazardous proposition. 4) Most of the targets of the DEs (aside from the occasional Random Act of Terror and Muggle Killing) are those who most openly oppose the DEs and Voldy. These wizards are more likely to be stronger and better defended than Joe Average, making them tougher targets. 5) Aurors in particular seem very tough. They are not bound by the restrictions on the Forbidden Curses as are the general public, and they are highly trained in magical fighting. An Auror is probably worth several DEs in a fight - tangling with an Auror is something to be avoided at all costs. 6) In the absence of Aurors, Ministry wizards seem duty-bound to respond to the presence of DEs. Any public sighting of a DE is thus likely to attract a lot of immediate response from an increasingly large crowd of Ministry wizards and Aurors - you will not see a DE, identifiable as such, casually walking down Diagon Alley. >From this, we can conclude that the MO of the Death Eaters is likely to be similar to that of all guerillas/terrorist cells - lie low, congregate quickly on a summons, strike en masse, and then get the hell out of Dodge before the calvary shows up. That Voldy has a pre-arranged method for quickly summoning the DEs to him (the burning Dark Tattoo) bears this out. A Death Eater attack would likely proceed as follows: 1) Voldy moves to a staging area near the intended target. 2) He sommons the DEs, who apperate in next to him. (And it would be consistant with Voldy's personality that this summons would happen without any prior warning, and that the speed at which a given DE responded would be a measure of loyalty) 3) The DEs + Voldy proceed to the target, and do whatever they intended to do to it, as quickly as possible. 4) Once accomplished, they send up the Dark Mark (I suspect known to the DEs as "auror bait") to let the world know they have Struck Again 5) They immediately disperse before anyone can react to the Dark Mark This, then, begs two questions: 1) Was Voldy alone when he went after Harry and his parents? 2) If so, why break with established procedures? and as an (unrelated) bonus question: 3) What happens if Harry uses Avra Kedavra on Voldy?? DG From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Thu Mar 14 15:45:39 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:45:39 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Generational Parallel References: Message-ID: <3C90C5A3.EF8A977F@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36516 adatole wrote: > Neville and Peter are the overweight and "under-achieving" members of > the group > Alot of people seem so eager to label Neville the next Peter. Yes, he's overweight, yes, he's an underachiever, but I don't think he underachieves because he doesn't have the skill. Peter didn't have the skill and had to be helped along. I think Neville has great skill, but is afraid of it. He did fabulous when Lupin had Neville go up against the Boggart - twice! Neville is also brave. He stood up to his friends in PS/SS when they were breaking the rules. I just think he's timid, and will come around in the next few books (She won't leave him timid forever) > Harry/James and Ron/Sirius are best friends, and are often getting > into trouble true > Hermione and Lupin have physiological changes on a monthly basis > which affect their mood, outlook, etc. And this change is tied to the > lunar cycle. (for Lupin, this is of course based on canon. While I > certainly don't expect JKR to get into menstruation in the books I > don't think is not a stretch to see the connection). I think this is a bit of a stretch. Yes...they each have a monthly cycle, but I wouldn't ever equate the two. > Of course, there is the major plot point that Voldemort presented a > threat to both generations, with a focus on the Potters. > > With JKR's focus on "Your choices make you who you are" I personally > discount the current theorizing of Neville's "predesitnation" to turn > to the dark side. > > But I was wondering if there were any other connections that I've > missed along the way? I haven't been looking for connection, cause I don't believe these books are meant to be parallel regarding the different generations. Harry and his Father do have qualities that are the same, but I think that's to be expected with family members. I know this doesn't support your theory, but I just don't think there's going to be any parallel that will predominate in the story. -Katze From porphyria at mindspring.com Thu Mar 14 19:20:39 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:20:39 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Where was Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <92293AB1-3780-11D6-B807-000393465128@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36517 Finwitch gave a set of reasons for why she thinks Snape is a psychopath. I know Judy has tackled this one before, and Amanda and Eloise have already begun again today, but I feel a need to chime in myself--I can't bear to see him maligned . Finwitch's list, and my rebuttal: > -Lack of emotion (particularly one of caring) is characteristic to > psychopaths. It is one of the main reasons I think that of Snape. Snape cares about a lot. He goes ballistic when he thinks Harry is endangering his life by going to Hogsmeade in PoA. He reacts with anger, but this is really the anger of a parent who finds their child has foolishly wandered off in a public place. If he were a psychopath, he'd be happy to let Harry get himself killed. Ditto his saving Harry's life on the Quidditch pitch in PS/SS. Also, his genuine anguish at the end of CoS over the fact that a child had been taken by the monster. The fact that most of Snape's emotions get rendered as anger does not mean he doesn't care, but simply that he has a hard time managing them. He is profoundly emotional. > -Things that applied to normal person would assist to smooth things > over, work just opposite to psychopaths - hating his lifesaver *more*? Eloise has covered this, but I need to reiterate it in my own words. There is absolutely nothing psychopathic about resenting the guy who saved your life. Snape is exptremely proud and loathes being caught in a vulnerable position (remember his reaction when Harry finds him with a mangled leg?). Being tricked into stumbling upon a werewolf was already humiliating for him because it made him look gullible (I'm sure he normally prides himself on his shrewdness). Plus it put his life in danger. That's bad enough, but to be rescued by someone you already hate it just too humiliating to bear for someone that proud and independent. *I* understand how he must have felt, and I'm quite safely neurotic. Snape's emotions here are simply an exaggeration (and perhaps an immature one, but still understandable) of what any honest person would admit they felt in the same situation. > -No conscience, no empathy. (Ever seen Snape regret anything?) Snape's reaction to "Moody" in the staircase scene in GoF is one of profound guilt on an operatic scale. He turns brick red (which is extraordinary for him) and feels a phantom pain in his arm. Plus he lets his guilt blind him to what "Moody" is really up to here; he loses his normal suspicion because he's too busy feeling remorse and regret about himself. These are the reactions of someone who is tortured by his conscience. I admit that he doesn't seem to care much about what he does to his students, but this is (to him) a very trivial issue. He's guilt stricken about the big things. > -Ambition (EVERY Slytherin is - that's why they're sorted there!) I hope this is not an indication of psychopathy. Personally, I'm always a little curious about Snape's ambition. He's proud of what he does in Potions, but there is no indication he's ruthlessly trying to move up in any hierarchy, either inside or outside the school. His loyalty to Dumbledore outweighs whatever ambitions he may have towards the Headmaster position. > -good at cheating Not sure exactly what you have in mind here, but even some of his 'cheating' has more to do with the protection of the student body than anything else. If you mean his exposure of Lupin, I'd defend him on that same ground: it's quite understandable to not want a werewolf teaching school children, especially when he winds up transforming despite your best efforts. What other incidences of 'cheating' do you see? > -like to make all unacceptable things seem to be the fault of their > "enemies" (Snape *does* do that. Why did he blame *Harry* for > Neville's first accident in Potions? It's *his* job to assure the > potions are securedly made, not that of another students!) I'm pretty sure Snape doesn't take himself that seriously here. He's out to take points off the Gryffindors, anyway he can. He's quite dramatic and even playful, in a nasty sort of way, about it. But I don't think he really believes that Harry was responsible for Neville's accident. He's really making a rhetorical point, that he won't cow-tow to Harry for any reason. Which might, to some extent, be to Harry's benefit. It's still a pretty normal human reaction to blame someone else for your problems, but in most cases when Snape genuinely gets upset about something (as with Sirius) he at least has a valid point. > - How opinions are divided into two about the person... Not sure what you mean here. > - Being ruthless. This isn't limited to psychopaths either. He's determined to do the right thing when he believes he knows what that is, but he still has limits as to how 'ruthless' he really is about it. For instance, he does everything he can in PoA to protect Harry from Sirius Black while he of course thinks the Black is the bad guy. He's quite ruthless about hunting Sirius down in the Shack and threatening him with the dementors, etc. But when he finally finds Sirius passed out at his feet, he's quite restrained. He makes no attempt to really call the dementors and he treats the unconscious body quite humanely. He's not aware of being watched now either, so he's not trying to impress anyone. A psychopath would choose this moment to do something quite vicious, but Snape is actually kinder when he's offstage. Thus, his 'ruthlessness' is part of an act; it's more scary than real. Amanda added: > > Still, it is a fact that if you ignore the delivery system (nasty, > mean, > > spiteful, etc.), the product that Snape delivers most often is > protection. > > How is this reconciled with your thought? Finwitch replied: > Duty. Rules. Importance of Life-Debt(both making debtors to him - and > paying his *own* debt to JP). Gaining and keeping the trust of the > boss. Keeping good face to his superiors. > A psychopath wouldn't care about duty or rules or life-debts. Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore is real; a psychopath wouldn't care if "Moody" or anyone else accused him of duping Dumbledore, but Snape gets really upset about it. I also don't think it's fair to characterize him as a psychopath just because it appears he has no friends. He might have sort of a friendship with McGonagall; there is some evidence of this. But even if he doesn't, his irritability and introversion are just as easily signs of clinical depression (which is incompatible with psychopathy), or simply signs of someone who has been through a war and come out fairly scarred. Furthermore, I doubt that JKR would put this much effort into highlighting a character who is really a psychopath. It fits more with her style of storytelling that he be a character with secrets, one who is more than he seems, and we have plenty of evidence of that already. Hasn't she herself said in interview that he was at least a 'principled' character? That strikes me as a good sign. :-) ~~Porphyria [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From psion_x at yahoo.com.au Thu Mar 14 15:50:12 2002 From: psion_x at yahoo.com.au (psion_x) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:50:12 -0000 Subject: All Things Green Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36518 I hope these haven't all been done: "A wild-looking old woman dressed all in green had waved merrily at him once on a bus..." Pg.27 Australian paperback Edition of HP and the Philosphers Stone "...and the hedge was staring back. Two enormous green eyes had appeared among the leaves." Pg.12 Australian paperback Edition of HP and the Chamber of Secrets "With a roar, the fire turned emerald green and rose higher than Fred..." Pg 41 Aus. Paperback of HP and the Chamber of Secrets "Mr. Weasley marched Harry across the short stretch of pavement towards the first of two old-fashioned dark green cars, each of which was been driven by a furtive-looking wizard wearing a suit of emerald velvet." Pg.57 Australian Paperback Ed HP and the Prisoner of Azakaban " A blast of green light blazed through Harry's eyelids, and he heard something heavy fall to the ground beside him; the pain in his scar reached such a pitch that he retchedd, and then it diminished; terrorified of what he was about to see, he opened his stinging eyes. Cedric was lying spread-eagled on the ground beside him. He was dead." Pg.553 Aust. Paperback edition HP and the Goblet of Fire Geeze, that's a depressing way to end it. All the same I claim these points for Hufflepuff! Remember Cedric Diggory. :O) Psion_x From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Mar 14 17:42:56 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:42:56 -0000 Subject: Slytherins evil In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020313102429.00b8a2a0@mail.aracnet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36519 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., CB wrote: > I don't think people finding themselves sorted into Slytherin are > inherently evil. Ambitious, possibly ruthless, yes, but not *evil*. > I do think, however, that the qualities that make a cannon Slytherin, also > make it far easier for them to become evil. The line between good and evil > for them is very blurred, and what starts out as a driving ambition, with > little thought to the consequences, quickly becomes evil acts. None of the Four Houses possesses self-right to define what is Good and what is Bad. Because, well - I have yet to find a moral code that fits in ALL situations imaginable. Sometimes it's difficult if not impossible to know what is good and what evil, despite for best efforts... Extremes always go wrong. The First Song of Sorting Hat heard by Harry... That's where the seed is: A Slytherin is ready to use *any* means to achieve what ever the ambition. That's what makes it so easy for a Slytherin to be bad. Like Voldemort. They all valued different virtues, the founders. From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu Mar 14 17:54:10 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:54:10 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and the Evil Overlord Rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36520 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > Prompted by office-induced boredom, I've decided to look up the Evil > Overlord Rules and see how Voldy is doing in relation to them. So far > he's only broken a few, but his actions have been severely limited > until recently, so who knows what he'll do in the future? > > The full list is at http://quoll.uwaterloo.ca/mine/overlord.html > > Here are the ones I found Voldy breaking; maybe others can spot more. > > 4. Shooting is not too good for my enemies. > > 6. I will not gloat over my enemies' predicament before killing them. > > 34. I will not turn into a snake. It never helps. > > 104. My undercover agents will not have tattoos identifying them as > members of my organization, nor will they be required to wear military > boots or adhere to any other dress codes. > > Mind you, the rules are not completely relieable. Voldemort > apparently attempted to follow rule 101 -- I will not order my trusted > lieutenant to kill the infant who is destined to overthrow me. I'll do > it myself. -- and look where it got him. How about 6. I will not gloat over my enemies' predicament before killing them. (GoF)(CoS) 17. When I employ people as advisors, I will occasionally listen to their advice. (possibly GoF, if Pettigrew is an advisor) 20. Despite its proven stress-relieving effect, I will not indulge in maniacal laughter. When so occupied, it's too easy to miss unexpected developments that a more attentive individual could adjust to accordingly. (all four books - Voldie had better watch this one. Sooner or later Harry's going to get used to the high-pitched laugh that doesn't quite suit the dark lord.) 23. I will keep a special cache of low-tech weapons and train my troops in their use. That way -- even if the heroes manage to neutralize my power generator and/or render the standard-issue energy weapons useless -- my troops will not be overrun by a handful of savages armed with spears and rocks. (Would this have been useful in GoF, when the wands went wonky?) 29. I will dress in bright and cheery colors, and so throw my enemies into confusion. (no comment) 33. I won't require high-ranking female members of my organization to wear a stainless-steel bustier. Morale is better with a more casual dress code. Similarly, outfits made entirely from black leather will be reserved for formal occasions. (he'd better follow this one with Mrs. Lestrange or watch out!) 55. The deformed mutants and odd-ball psychotics will have their place in my Legions of Terror. However before I send them out on important covert missions that require tact and subtlety, I will first see if there is anyone else equally qualified who would attract less attention. (this just might be a problem....) 56. My Legions of Terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice. (remember the DEs in the graveyard?) 61. If my advisors ask "Why are you risking everything on such a mad scheme?", I will not proceed until I have a response that satisfies them. (Pettigrew -Chapter I - GoF) 71. If I decide to test a lieutenant's loyalty and see if he/she should be made a trusted lieutenant, I will have a crack squad of marksmen standing by in case the answer is no. (He'd better be ready with Snape.) 111. I will offer oracles the choice of working exclusively for me or being executed. (didn't someone say Voldemort's going to try to kidnap Trelawney?) 115. I will not engage an enemy single-handedly until all my soldiers are dead. (GoF) 130. All members of my Legions of Terror will have professionally tailored uniforms. If the hero knocks a soldier unconscious and steals the uniform, the poor fit will give him away. (this is a problem with Voldemort. How do you know who's underneath the robes?) 147. I will classify my lieutenants in three categories: untrusted, trusted, and completely trusted. Promotion to the third category will be awarded posthumously. (I think this is a very important one for Voldemort to remember) Of course, Crouch Jr. breaks 16. I will never utter the sentence "But before I kill you, there's just one thing I want to know." (GoF), which shows why he never survived to become an evil overlord. From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Mar 14 17:58:25 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:58:25 -0000 Subject: Prejudices (was Malfoy's Choice of Date) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36521 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jake Storm" wrote: > >From: "marinafrants" > >In fact, we know Hagrid was talking crap, since at the time he said > >this, Sirius Black, Gryffindor stud-muffin extraordinaire, was > >sitting in Azkaban with the whole wizarding world (including Hagrid) > >believing that he was Voldemort's best buddy. And even after it > >turned out that Sirius is innocent, the guilty party was yet another > >Gryffindor. So we *know* not all the wizards who went bad are > >Slytherins. > > Yes, we know that he was discounting Black or eventually Pettigrew, but do > we know the *why*? Was he simply applying house prejudice, being a > Gryffindor himself before getting the boot? Or was it simply that Hagrid had > no desire to tell Harry "Oh, yes, there was one non-Slytherin that went bad, > your godfather, the one that betrayed your parents..." Seems a bit harsh if > you ask me, to drop that on a young boy without much warning. > Maybe Hagrid simply didn't know of them? From bonnie at niche-associates.com Thu Mar 14 18:01:40 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:01:40 -0000 Subject: Harry the heir of Salazar? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36522 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Gautam_Ghosh wrote: > Hi all, > > I am new here...so my apologies if I make some blunder while delurking... > > My first point is: > > 1. Could Harry be the heir of Slytherin himself? > > Hold on, lemme explain... > [a] He can speak Parselmouth > [b] He has a wand that's someway related to the wand of the person who wants > to be Slytherin's heir himself....Voldy... > [c] The fact that he was sorted into Gryffindor also has to do with the > good-moral picture he has given to them versus the Slytherin's....could it > be JKR's query about the ages-old psychological question..."is it nature or > is it nurture" ? > [d] He has pots of inherited money which is so far unaccounted ! > > I tend to think so because....as somebody mentioned recently, Malfoy was > attracted by the power he sensed around Harry [a very Slytherin trait] and > constantly tries to goad him to compare himself...? > > Ok, bouquets and brickbats welcome ;-)) I guess this will have to be counted as a brickbat, but I'll swing slowly... :D [a]Dumbledore tells Harry that he can speak Parseltongue because Voldemort left a little of himself behind when he cast the failed curse on Harry. (CoS 332) [b]Harry and Voldemort's wands are brothers by virtue of their phoenix-feather cores coming from the same bird. Voldemort does not aspire to be the heir of Slytherin, he IS the heir of Slytherin. (CoS 332; if your edition says V. is the last remaining ancestor of Slytherin, correct it to say decendant. One of JKR's editors goofed.) [c]JKR is addressing choices vs. inborn abilities with the Sorting Hat. Harry's natural abilities should have landed him in Slytherin, but he didn't want to be there. So the Hat put him in Gryffindor. [d]Harry's fortune in galleons he inherited from his parents. Canon doesn't say how the Potters got so rich. Yet. Much of what happens in CoS is designed to make us--and Harry--think that he might be the heir of Salazar Slytherin. It disturbs Harry immensely to think that he might be a monster deep down inside (just like Ender in Ender's Game). Draco, on the other hand, would have been delighted to be the heir. Dontcha hate it when you think you've found something and it turns out you haven't? --Dicentra, who's done it dozens of times. From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Thu Mar 14 18:08:05 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:08:05 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherins evil? Not necesarily In-Reply-To: <002e01c1cad3$3d13c2e0$2211bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020313102429.00b8a2a0@mail.aracnet.com> <002e01c1cad3$3d13c2e0$2211bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> Message-ID: <801132381.20020314100805@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36523 Wednesday, March 13, 2002, 12:47:48 PM, Felicia Rickmann wrote: FR> ... Salazar Slytherin prized ambition, resourcefulness, and a disregard for rules. I imagine Slytherin turns out the majority of the Wizarding World's politicians. -- Dave From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Mar 14 18:10:55 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:10:55 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and the Evil Overlord Rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36524 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > 20. Despite its proven stress-relieving effect, I will not indulge in > maniacal laughter. When so occupied, it's too easy to miss unexpected > developments that a more attentive individual could adjust to > accordingly. (all four books - Voldie had better watch this one. > Sooner or later Harry's going to get used to the high-pitched laugh > that doesn't quite suit the dark lord.) Oh, yeah, that's a biggie. You know, I bet the Aurors thought Sirius was breaking that one when they found him laughing at the scene of Pettigrew's "death," and that just went further to convince them that he was an Evil Overlord wannabe. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Mar 14 18:20:05 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:20:05 -0000 Subject: Prejudices (was Malfoy's Choice of Date) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36525 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jake Storm" wrote: > > Yes, we know that he was discounting Black or eventually Pettigrew, > but do > > we know the *why*? Was he simply applying house prejudice, being a > > Gryffindor himself before getting the boot? Or was it simply that > Hagrid had > > no desire to tell Harry "Oh, yes, there was one non-Slytherin that > went bad, > > your godfather, the one that betrayed your parents..." Seems a bit > harsh if > > you ask me, to drop that on a young boy without much warning. > > > > Maybe Hagrid simply didn't know of them? Well, he certainly didn't know about Pettigrew, since nobody knew at the time (nobody outside Azkaban, anyhow); but I simply cannot believe he didn't know about Black. I don't care how slow on the uptake Hagrid is supposed to be, when someone you know personally becomes your society's most notorious mass murdered, you don't just fail to notice. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From Ali at zymurgy.org Thu Mar 14 18:21:24 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:21:24 -0000 Subject: DE Name Origin, & some Dark Mark In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36526 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" wrote: > > being destroyed. > > > > I like that theory. A part of Snape died because of Harry... Explains > a bit of his hating Harry during the Sorting Feast. Also - There were > Snape and Quirrell and that Voldemort-head, when Harry had his first > experience of a hurting scar. No mention of it when in Quirrell's > presence in the Leaky Cauldron. First time is Snape AND Quirrell. > Snape is *looking* at Harry when the scar hurts first time! I think it > took both for a chance. Later, it took one of them - Harry's scar hurt > in Potion's exam... > > There is, I think, a lot more about Harry's scar... Maybe it'll now > burn around Death-Eaters, too? Poor Harry, he won't be able to take > potions without getting a head-ache... I agree that there will be alot more about the scar in the future books. But I've got a different understanding of why Harry's scar first hurt. I thought that it didn't hurt when he first met Quirrell at Diagon Alley because Voldemort had not yet possessed Quirrell (he possessed him after the failed raid on the bank). In the Sorting hat scene, I thought that Quirrell had turned away from Harry so that the turban (and therefore Voldemort) could get a good look at Harry. Thus it was when Voldemort looked at Harry that he experienced pain. It had nothing to do with the hateful look that Snape was giving him. Though of course none of this became clear until later. Any other views? Ali From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Mar 14 18:35:28 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:35:28 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pink Flamingos/ Fourth Man Kayak and other ramblings Message-ID: <80.18fb37d4.29c24770@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36527 > Me ( Eloise) > > I know it suits Snape's gothic image > > (and I still want to install an organ down there for him!) To which Marina replies: > But not a pink flamingo? I never actually got the hang of the pink flamingo thing. Would someone in the know please explain in words which a bear of very little brain would understand. Can you make featherboas out of them? (Oh, no! Vision of Snape in pink featherboa.) Elkins : >So that's Fourth Man. It's, er, not a very *popular* theory, I'm >afraid. In fact, at one point I seem to remember being reduced to >claiming that two people constituted a "drove" in my feeble attempt >to portray it as a burgeoning speculative movement. But you're >welcome to join us, if you like. We don't have staterooms or cute >cabin boys or tasty snacks or great big can(n)ons, like some of those >bigger ships do, but...um...we do have Avery on board as our mascot. >And sometimes Cindy brings S'mores. >Eileen warns: >> But remember that the crew of the Avery kayak: Elkins, Cindy, >> Eileen (and anyone else?)... >>Well, Porphyria once agreed to join us, but I think that she was >>probably just being polite. I know I'm naive, but I thought the case you'd made out was so convincing that everyone accepted its nearly canon ( deuterocanonical?) status. But there's this ban on 'me too's' (which you broke today, Elkins - being nice to me - resulting in a lovely vision of you shutting your head in the oven door - 'Bad List Elf!, Bad List Elf'!). And you guys get so involved in your role plays that the rest of us can only sit back and watch in amused admiration. And besides a kayak's so....well, little...and a bit wet and uncomfortable. Now, if only you could upgrade a little..... Then, of course I'll have to give serious consideration to how I'd like to take my Fourth Man, so to speak. I don't think I phrased that very well, but you know what I mean. And I've even been known to come round to the idea of Bloody Ambushes - as long as they were offered, not demanded. >> Eloise, who'd like to see what Laurence Llewelyn Bowen would do with >.the >> Slytherin common room ( he's a rather flamboyant British TV interior >. designer, with more than a passing resemblance to the film Snape, >>not least >> in dress sense). Marina: >Great; now I have mental image of Snape sweeping into the staff room >crying, "Oh, I just saw the most *marvelous* window treatment!" Would that be a send-up of a British accent, there? It gets worse. (I'm afraid this will only be intelligible to Brits). We could have 'Changing Common Rooms', in which the Hufflepuffs and Laurence get a weekend to make over the Slytherins' domain (Carol Smillie running up fluffy cushions out of cast-off Weasley jumpers), whilst the Slytherins and Linda Barker get to do the Hufflepuff commom room, with Handy Andy creating mock rough stone walls out of MDF. Then Diarmud Gavin (Is that how you spell it?) could set to work on the grounds, putting in some mild steel constructions. Or else we could get in Ground Force, but three days might not be long enough to transform them, even with prodigous quantities of decking, although Charlie Dimmock could do a *huge* water feature in the middle of the lake....... Eloise. (And I thought Elkins was beginning to ramble!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From maestrie at libero.it Thu Mar 14 18:58:32 2002 From: maestrie at libero.it (Elena Maestri) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:58:32 +0100 Subject: All things green Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36528 Here are my entries, for Gryffindor Sometimes, when he strained his memory during long hours in his cupboard, he came up with a strange vision: a blinding flash of green light and a burning pain on his forehead. PS, p. 27 UK paperback He did look very green, and when the cart stopped at last beside a small door in the passage wall, Hagrid got out and had to lean against the wall to stop his knees from trembling. PS, p. 58 UK paperback He was wearing long green robes, which were dusty and travel-worn. CS p. 33-34 UK paperback "Letters from school," said Mr. Weasley, passing Harry and Ron identical envelopes of yellowish parchment, addressed in green ink. CS p. 37-38 UK paperback And as the wand caught the green light that was filling the clearing from the skull above, Harry recognized it "Hey - that's mine!" he said Everyone in the clearing looked at him. GF p. 120 UK hardback Elena From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Mar 14 19:03:47 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:03:47 -0000 Subject: Pink Flamingos/ Fourth Man Kayak and other ramblings In-Reply-To: <80.18fb37d4.29c24770@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36529 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > > But not a pink flamingo? > > I never actually got the hang of the pink flamingo thing. Would someone in > the know please explain in words which a bear of very little brain would > understand. > Can you make featherboas out of them? (Oh, no! Vision of Snape in pink > featherboa.) I don't remember which post it originally came from, but it was durring a discussion of LOLLIPOPS and Snape-romance in general. I said that while with some characters, giving them sentimental romantic motives works, with Snape it would be like putting a pink flamingo in a Gothic cathedral. I was thinking of the plastic lawn ornaments, but I suppose a real flamingo would have the same effect. Since the flamingo symbolizes Snape-shipping, by all means feel free to wring its scrawny neck and make some featherboas. Can I have one too? I like to make George play dress-up once in a while. > > Marina: > >Great; now I have mental image of Snape sweeping into the staff room > >crying, "Oh, I just saw the most *marvelous* window treatment!" > > Would that be a send-up of a British accent, there? A send-up of stereotypcial flamboyant gay behavior. It seems to be accepted wisdom in the popular US media that gay men are fascinated by interior decorating and say "marvelous" a lot. So when you compared Snape to a flamboyant interior designer, the image popped up. Snape is certainly flamboyant, and since I refuse to 'ship him I'm in no position to make statements about which way he swings, but I refuse to believe that the word "marvelous" would ever pass his greasy lips. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com Thu Mar 14 19:01:03 2002 From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:01:03 -0000 Subject: Slytherins evil? References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020313102429.00b8a2a0@mail.aracnet.com> <002e01c1cad3$3d13c2e0$2211bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> <801132381.20020314100805@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <007701c1cb8b$e958fb20$079bbc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 36530 Wednesday, March 13, 2002, 12:47:48 PM, Felicia Rickmann wrote: FR> ... Salazar Slytherin prized ambition, resourcefulness, and a disregard for rules. I imagine Slytherin turns out the majority of the Wizarding World's politicians. -- Dave Has anyone got any ideas about whether Fudge was a Slytherin?? There were deep and dense discussions as to whether Fudge is a DE or not! (Civil servants and politicians working hand in hand and all that......) We know that Fudge has spoken to the Prime Minister about Sirius Black (PoA). However, I draw the line at most politicians being resourceful, that's what they have spin doctors for....... Felicia [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lmccabe at sonic.net Thu Mar 14 17:43:18 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (linda_mccabe) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:43:18 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Upkeep In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36531 There has been much discussion on this and I've been amazed that no one has brought up the obvious when the concept of an endowment was proposed. Simply, Albus Dumbledore had a certain partner by the name of Nicholas Flamel who had something that would turn metal into gold. A source of unlimited wealth. You know that thing that happened to be in the Title Of The First Book! Now if we were looking for a generous benefactor - who else would fit the bill than someone with a source of perpetual gold. With Dumbledore given the responsibility of guarding its security, I certainly could envision an attitude of largess by Flamel towards Hogwarts. And since Harry's two letters hand delivered from Hagrid did not mention tuition and when it should be paid, I would assume that there is not a tuition involved with attending Hogwarts. Simply that the students are required to confirm their attendance by owl, pick up their own supplies, and show up at Kings Cross Station for the Hogwarts Express. That ought to explain the funding of Hogwarts at least for right now - even if it doesn't explain how it was funded when it was founded. Moreover, how does the Ministry of Magic provide salaries for its employees? Are they supported by wizardry taxes? If so, would that be something as pedestrian as sales taxes at the Three Broomsticks and Honeydukes? Or should we just give this a rest because the subject is just too damned boring and doesn't drive the plot one whit? Athena From siriuskase at yahoo.com Thu Mar 14 18:31:46 2002 From: siriuskase at yahoo.com (siriuskase) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:31:46 -0000 Subject: Is Hogwarts Public or Private? (I was using the American version of the word In-Reply-To: <017001c19eda$05ec0ea0$0b1f073e@j0dhe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36532 HOLLYDAZE: > In the Us (as I understand) a public school is one paid for by taxes and a Private school is on paid for by parents, scholarships etc. In Britain, Public and Private schooling means that SAME THING, they are both Fee paying schools.> I was reading old posts and saw yours that had gone with no response. Pardon me if I'm breaking some rule about responding to old messages. Americans would call Hogwarts a "statewide residential magnet school for students with a strong aptitude" in the magic arts. I copied this almost verbatom from the website of one: http://www.ncssm.edu/ That one is supported by taxes and would be called public. We don't know who pays for Hogwarts, it's never been mentioned, but since Fred (or was it George) complains about the cost of books, but not tuition, I think it is public in the American sense. > > HOLLYDAZE!!!( Who personally -even though I'm British- agrees with the American wording, it makes more sense). The British terminology refers to the origin of the students. Any family may apply for their child to be admitted to a Public School. Private schools in great Britain are less formal, more like apprenticeships or private tutoring or home schooling with a teacher directly hired by the parents. But, I'm an American, I don't guarantee my definition for correctness. From sabina.pfister at gmx.ch Thu Mar 14 18:14:54 2002 From: sabina.pfister at gmx.ch (Sabina Pfister) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:14:54 +0100 Subject: female Death Eaters? References: <1016116604.7309.94930.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <3C90E89E.6000900@gmx.ch> No: HPFGUIDX 36533 Ayla Pascal wrote: >And I have one small question about Death Eaters. In the fourth >book, at the end, it almost seems like that Voldemort disregards all >the female Death Eaters (assuming that there are any, and that >assumption comes from Harry, who said to Draco at the beginning of >the fourth book, about his parents being out on the field in black >cloaks and masks, and what would he know about it). So are there any >female death eaters? I couldn't find any other references to them in >the GoF. Well, there is Mrs. Lestrange, who seems to have to be VERRRY evil in order to be accepted among her fellow Death Eaters. Do they think that women should stay at home and supervise the house-elves? I can well imagine that Lucius Malfoy would think so, and therefore I don't really believe that Narcissa was with him out on the field. I find it interesting, how "organisations" describes by JKR as not-so-good (MoM) to very-bad (DE) are male-dominated, while in good places (Hogwarts) both genders are represented equally. (yes, the headmaster is male, but McGonagall is deputy headmistress, and we're gonna get a female DADA teacher, yeah!) Then again, she's just being realistic. There are lots of female teachers whereas in ministries you find women mainly in less powerful positions. Now what could be an equivalent for the Death Eaters, I wonder? Sabina From ruben at satec.es Thu Mar 14 18:41:23 2002 From: ruben at satec.es (ruben at satec.es) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:41:23 +0100 Subject: Fudge House (was RE: Slytherins evil? Not necesarily) In-Reply-To: <801132381.20020314100805@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <009701c1cb87$d8494af0$a920a4d5@satec.es> No: HPFGUIDX 36534 Dave wrote: > I imagine Slytherin turns out the majority of the Wizarding World's > politicians. I was thinking of Cornelius Fudge. So what house do you all think he came from? I didn't find anything about this in the archives, but of course they've become rather unwieldly. I guess that depends on whether you believe F.I.E. or not. I don't think he's evil, myself - and these are my thoughts: - He's certainly not a Gryffindor. He's weak, he hasn't got what it takes to do the right thing when that would threaten his position. - Not a Ravenclaw, definitely - he's hopelessly incompetent. - A hard working Hufflepuff... doesn't sound right somehow... oh, of course not. They're supposed to be loyal. - And wouldn't you say he puts his ambitions above everything else? F.I.A.S.C.O !!! Fudge Is A Slytherin, Conceited and Obnoxious !!! Cheers, Elirtai From felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com Thu Mar 14 19:17:57 2002 From: felicia.rickmann at dial.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:17:57 -0000 Subject: Arabella Figg - Animagus?? References: Message-ID: <008301c1cb8c$f4329460$079bbc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 36535 I have heard a lot of rumours about book 5 most if which I happily discount, however, I came across the following which, bearing in mind that JKR said Mrs Figg would feature in the next book might prove interesting, bearing in mind Crookshanks behaviour in previous books. Amongst the weirdest rumours I have heard is the one that Mrs Arabella Figg is an animagus, Crookshanks to be exact. Felicia [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 14 19:29:00 2002 From: lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com (Ms Lizard Gizzard) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:29:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Arabella Figg - Animagus?? In-Reply-To: <008301c1cb8c$f4329460$079bbc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> Message-ID: <20020314192900.17949.qmail@web13509.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36536 --- Felicia Rickmann wrote: > I have heard a lot of rumours about book 5 most if > which I happily discount, however, I came across the > following which, bearing in mind that JKR said Mrs > Figg would feature in the next book might prove > interesting, bearing in mind Crookshanks behaviour > in previous books. > > Amongst the weirdest rumours I have heard is the one > that Mrs Arabella Figg is an animagus, Crookshanks > to be exact. I've seen this one bandied about on the kids' sites. I'll give the same argument here that I've made there. Crookshanks is a *boy* cat! As far as I have seen, there is no evidence that transfiguration also results in a sex change. My personal theory on Figg/Crookshanks is that Crook is a half-kneazle (see Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them), and is *possibly* the cat that tripped Mrs. Figg and caused her to break her ankle in the first book. Just a thought. Liz Giz __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/ From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com Thu Mar 14 19:31:27 2002 From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:31:27 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Arabella Figg - Animagus?? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36537 >From: "Felicia Rickmann" >Amongst the weirdest rumours I have heard is the one that Mrs Arabella Figg >is an animagus, Crookshanks to be exact. If MRS. Figg can change herself into a BOY cat, she's a more powerful witch than Dumbledore is a wizard. :) I've heard the same rumor, except that it wasn't Mrs. Figg, it was *Lily* that had become Crookshanks! Yikes! J _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu Mar 14 19:35:36 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:35:36 -0000 Subject: Pink Flamingos/ Fourth Man Kayak and other ramblings In-Reply-To: <80.18fb37d4.29c24770@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36538 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > I never actually got the hang of the pink flamingo thing. Would someone in > the know please explain in words which a bear of very little brain would > understand. Marina has explained her side of the pink flamingo story, but I'll give you the LOLLIPOPS spin on it. Marina called LOLLIPOPS the pink flamingo in the Gothic cathedral, and Tabouli pounced on the image and now flaunts it as proof for LOLLIPOPS (look at the colour contrast! It just works!). I'm a pink flamingo in a Gothic cathedral person myself, though currently in hiding from Tabouli, after I lost my temper when I saw Elkins climbing on board with another pink flamingo (Snape loves Mrs. Norris.) Tabouli says something about a little talk. Now, what can that be? No, I'm keeping Avery company on the kayak. Speaking of which..... > I know I'm naive, but I thought the case you'd made out was so convincing > that everyone accepted its nearly canon ( deuterocanonical?) status. Wow! I can't say how unexpected this is. Just us five (including Avery) on the kayak, and suddenly everyone wants to crowd in. >And you guys get so involved in your > role plays that the rest of us can only sit back and watch in amused > admiration. I suppose our speculation does have a little RPG flavour to it. /me casts her thoughts back to the scene were Cindy was allegedly yelling "Suck it up!" at Elkins, while I was allegedly making tea in a Viking's helmet and reading snippets of the head-catapult scene in LOTR. No. Certainly not. Canonical speculation. Every bit of it. >And besides a kayak's so....well, little...and a bit wet and > uncomfortable. Ah, but Cindy prizes toughness. The kayak, I think, is supposed to build our characters. Unfortunately, us sycophants aren't benefitting from the situation. >Now, if only you could upgrade a little..... I'm a little attached to the kayak, but with all the passengers, we might have to. :-) > Then, of course > I'll have to give serious consideration to how I'd like to take my Fourth > Man, so to speak. I don't think I phrased that very well, but you know what I > mean. As Elkins has noted, I'm a Fourth Man with Remorse. Frankly, I don't get the point of Imperius AND Remorse. Don't they cancel each other out? Or is Avery one of those sensitive souls who worries about everything? Lupin without EDGE? >And I've even been known to come round to the idea of Bloody Ambushes - > as long as they were offered, not demanded. Yes, of course. Come right around this corner, behind the bushes, where no-one can see you, and you can see the selection we're offering. That noise? Probably the wind. There's certainly nothing behind that corner but our selections. Donning her FEATHERBOA and Viking Helmet, Eileen hails Elkins. Elkins is talking to someone else: >Avery himself, although he sometimes shares the kayak with us, >doesn't get to express his own opinion on the matter, because >he's just an in-jokey parody of somebody else's fictional >character, and so doesn't count. ;^) Avery never counts, does he? Do you know what that does to his feelings? But, come to think of it, has Avery every talked since we kidnapped him from his stint collecting stamps in the basement/working under Fudge/advicing Percy Weasley? He only looks at us with those big brown sorrowful reproachful eyes and moans. It's getting on my nerves. >Smarting? Because I called you a SYCOPHANT? Oh, but Eileen, >consider the *source,* will you? I mean, I'm all in *favor* of >sycophants! Look, I've even got the badge to prove it. >There is *nothing wrong* with being a SYCOPHANT! We are fine people, >people of great sensitivity and refinement. Oh, sure, we may not >have much in the way of those boring old heroic virtues, like >Toughness and Valor and Honesty and Integrity and the Courage of Our >Convictions. We may not get much in the way of reader sympathy, and >we may rarely get happy endings. But we have something even better >than that! We have...we have *soul,* is what we have! We have >complexity! We're cross-motivated! We have pathos, and we have >bathos, and sometimes we even have a touch of eros! We. Have. >HUMANITY. Well said! I grovel behind every word of it! BTW, did you feel a twinge of sympathy for Pettigrew when he said the Dark Lord forced him to betray the Potters? I did (at least the first time around) and Lupin's reaction still doesn't feel good for me. I mean, "Who doesn't crack every once and a while?" Now, of course, it looks like Pettigrew's guilty as sin. >Elkins offered to read Eileen that nice bit at the end of Return of the King where nasty old Saruman finally gets his, if it will help her to feel better about the whole SYCOPHANTS thing.< Grima Wormtongue, the patron saint of sycophants! But he didn't survive, Elkins, he didn't survive. Even Frodo couldn't save him. Eileen goes off polishing her SYCOPHANT badge sadly. From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu Mar 14 19:54:23 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:54:23 -0000 Subject: Do people like SYCOPHANTS? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36539 Sycophants make great characters at point. Note Grima Wormtongue and Peter Pettigrew. But do people actually like them? Do you ever feel sympathetic with a sycophant? When you read Elkins' Avery posts, do you feel an urge to put your arms around Avery and tell him it'll be all right, or do you think "Another stupid sycophant. They deserve what they get?" When you read the Shrieking Shack scene for the first time, were you feeling it more from Sirius/Lupin's angry POV or Pettigrew's desperately afraid POV? Well, it might be something strange in me but I was seeing it from the second POV. I have this tendency to get along well with sycophants, neurotics and the rest. One of my first fanfics was about how Gollum survived Mt. Doom and Merry and Pippin brought him back to the Shire and reformed him by taking him swimming and on picnics. (I was very young.) Now, I can take the pain given to weaker characters, and, being a FEATHERBOA, enjoy it, but my heart still goes out to every miserable fictional character that comes along. My favourite character is Star Wars is Admiral Piett, who pretends not to notice when Vader's strangling people behind him, makes jokes about bounty hunters to his officers and then backs away when a bounty hunter looks at him, changes his mind on his course of action when Vader so much as breathes in his direction, and dies in a valiant attempt to hold the roof of the Executor up when a fighter comes through the window. (At least that's what it looks like.) Is this wide-spread phenomonem? Or are we only a few whose supply of pity is infinite? Are we the same people who start pondering whether Tom Riddle was cute as a baby? Eileen From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Mar 14 21:08:39 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:08:39 -0000 Subject: FILK: I am werewolf Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36540 Yeah, yeah, I know, I just can't seem to stop writing these things. But I really, really wanted to do one for Lupin. I am Werewolf To the tune of "I am Woman" by Helen Reddy http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3713/midis/iamwoman.mid LUPIN: I am werewolf, hear me howl, At each full moon I'm on the prowl, A menace and a monster dark and wild. At other times you will not see A kinder, gentler guy than me, Intelligent, compassionate and mild. Oh yes, I am strong, Forged in loneliness and pain. Yes, I have been wronged, But I will not complain. If I have to, I can bear anything. I am alone, I'm unemployable, I am werewolf. I have courage, I have smarts, I know Defence Against Dark Arts, I have chocolate if Dementors give you stress. Why, I even can teach Neville To defeat his private devil By making Snape-the-boggart wear a dress. Oh yes, I am strong, Forged in loneliness and pain. Yes, I have been wronged, But I will not complain. If I have to, I can bear anything. I am alone, I'm unemployable, I am werewolf. I am werewolf, see me roam, I have no place, I have no home, I live pursued by prejudice and hate. And I must drink on full moon nights A potion made with aconite; The phases of the moon control my fate. Oh yes, I am strong, Forged in loneliness and pain. Yes, I have been wronged, But I will not complain. If I have to, I can bear anything. I am alone, I'm unemployable, I am werewolf. I am werewolf, I'm unemployable, I am alone. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From boggles at earthlink.net Thu Mar 14 21:17:40 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:17:40 -0600 Subject: How do you solve a problem like Voldemort? (was: various posts) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36541 At 4:45 AM +0000 3/14/02, ecuman24 wrote: >Why would the phoenix of Dumbledore give two feathers and one >choosing the Dark Lord?? This seemingly peaceful bird of the >greatest wizard of the time has given one of its feathers to be a >wand for Voldemort. Not only that, the wand chose him! Why would >it choose him?? Ah, but remember that a wand has two elements: the wood and the core. (It might have three; there are arguments about how significant the length is.) In SS 5, Ollivander gives the wood of Voldemort's wand as yew. Now, yew is a tree commonly associated in folklore with death and with the Otherworld. I'm told that in colder climes it's planted in graveyards; there are yews by the Riddle grave in GoF 33. At least some of my books also claim a connection with immortality. The phoenix, of course, represents life-in-death and immortality. Clearly this is the combination meant for a wizard whose goal is to conquer death, isn't it? Now, why Fawkes's feather and not some other phoenix? Well, surely the correct answer is 'dramatic effect', but if this is Voldemort's original wand, then perhaps when it was sold to him he was 11-year-old Tom Riddle, bitter but not yet corrupted. Since Ollivander claims he didn't know when he sold it what the wand would be used for, one assumes that the wand didn't know either, and that there was still some chance - ah, if only Riddle had made the right *choices*! - that it would be used for good. Harry's wand, by the way, is holly, associated with the rebirth of the sun after the darkest time of the year. At 2:10 PM +0530 3/14/02, Gautam_Ghosh wrote: >My first point is: > >1. Could Harry be the heir of Slytherin himself? I think he might be, *now*. Let me explain that: I assume that Riddle was born the Heir, and that his mother was Heiress before him. I will further assume that the Heir-ship is passed down by blood. Consider the fateful night, Oct. 31, 1981. James and Lily have fallen, and Voldemort flings the Killing Curse at Harry - and it bounces off. What does it do? It removes him from his body. Whether the body fell dead at Harry's feet (unlikely, I think; most people would have assumed he was dead) or disintgrated, we don't know. When Voldemort is reincarnated in GoF, _nothing_ from his mother is included. The new body is composed of water, snake venom, unicorn's blood, bone from the elder (Muggle) Riddle, flesh from Peter Pettigrew (probably not even a Slytherin), and blood from Harry. There may be other elements in the cauldron Wormtail brings to the grave, but they're never mentioned, and they're not part of the spell, at any rate. Even if Voldemort's new body is capable of having children - and I suspect it isn't, for no particular reason other than its inhumanness - clearly it, and any child concieved from it, would have no blood link to Slytherin and thus would not be the Heir. Let's go back to Godric's Hollow. Voldemort is vanquished, and suddenly there's no Heir to Slytherin. Is a lineage that long and powerful going to just vanish? Well, maybe. But if it didn't - Harry's got this terrible cut on his forehead. Later, through most of CoS, he exhibits many of the traits that the Heir is supposed to show. Perhaps a few drops of blood from Voldemort's lost body landed on the cut, making them blood brothers? If so, Harry is the closest thing to an Heir that Slytherin still has. It would also give Voldemort another reason for using Harry's blood, rather than that of another enemy, in hopes of regaining his Heir status. All this brings up another question: was Riddle's mother Eviler than Evil? If not, doesn't that prove that Slytherins needn't be? At 3:28 PM +0000 3/14/02, marinafrants wrote: >Here are the ones I found Voldy breaking; maybe others can spot more. > >4. Shooting is not too good for my enemies. Given that _none_ of the wizards seem to use firearms (the closest thing is Hagrid's crossbow in CoS 14), he tried to do the equivalent - twice, and it hasn't worked either time. (I can just hear the conversation . . . Draco: "Oh, so you've survived Avada Kedavra twice _and_ you can resist Imperius. You're just immune to the Unforgivable Curses, then?" Harry, wincing: "No, Cruciatus works all too well.") >34. I will not turn into a snake. It never helps. Did I miss something? When did he turn into a snake? I thought that was Salazar. >104. My undercover agents will not have tattoos identifying them as >members of my organization, nor will they be required to wear military >boots or adhere to any other dress codes. Given that the Dark Mark seems to be invisible most of the time, this is only a partial violation, IMHO . . . At 3:18 PM +0000 3/14/02, talondg wrote: >This, then, begs two questions: > >1) Was Voldy alone when he went after Harry and his parents? I doubt it. I'd always imagined he brought Pettigrew with him, at least. >2) If so, why break with established procedures? There may have been more than one established procedure. "Change of plans, Lucius! Go to Operation 31B!" >and as an (unrelated) bonus question: > >3) What happens if Harry uses Avra Kedavra on Voldy?? Given that he's not an Auror, and thus not licensed to kill, I imagine he'd go to Azkaban (Snape: "Couldn't resist breaking that one last rule, eh, Potter?"). -- - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon boggles at earthlink.net === Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 === GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+ c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+ ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U! From boggles at earthlink.net Thu Mar 14 21:31:04 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:31:04 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Divination, Snapes' Whereabouts, and SYCOPHANTS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36542 At 1:52 PM +0000 3/14/02, jklb66 wrote: > >She also predicts that, "Around Easter, one of our number will leave >us forever." I don't believe that Trelawney had any idea that >Hermione would quit the class, but that doesn't change the fact that >she did. This was an incredibly vague prediction that could have come true in a number of ways: an expulsion, a death, etc. When nothing that could have been interpreted as the event predicted occurred, she _made_ the prediction come true, by badgering Hermione out of the class. You're not allowed to do that, needless to say. >And one prediction that bothers me: in PoA, at Christmas dinner, >Trelawney is reluctant to sit at the table because, "Never forget >that when thirteen dine together, the first to rise will be the first >to die!" I wonder where she got this. It can't be from the usual sources about thirteens being unlucky; the first to rise from _that_ table was the _second_ to die. At any rate, it's not a prediction, as she states it as a generality. >Many of >us have predicted that either Ron or Harry will not survive book 7, >and here is Trelawney predicting the same thing. Unless she makes this one come true, too, I doubt we really need to worry about this one. At 5:25 PM -0800 3/13/02, Ronald Rae Yu wrote: >Where was Snape the night Quirrell was trying to steal >the stone? Isn't it he knows somebody (Quirrell) is >trying to steal it? Why was he not as protective of >the stone as the trio? Does he really want Voldemort >to have the stone, after all, pretending that he's >trying to stop Quirrell so that nobody (including >Quirrell) will suspect him? Given that he can't get past Fluffy, as previously demonstrated, there's little he can do after both Quirrell and the Trio have gotten past that point. Assuming that Quirrell got away from him in the hallways, perhaps he was the one who tipped off Dumbledore that their trap was sprung . . . At 7:54 PM +0000 3/14/02, lucky_kari wrote: >When you read the Shrieking Shack scene for the first time, were you >feeling it more from Sirius/Lupin's angry POV or Pettigrew's >desperately afraid POV? Hermione's fingers-over-eyes viewpoint, actually. I certainly felt sorry for Pettigrew (especially since I assumed he was buck naked), but I wasn't going to intervene to save him, as it were. -- - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon boggles at earthlink.net === Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 === GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+ c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+ ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U! From trog at wincom.net Thu Mar 14 20:31:26 2002 From: trog at wincom.net (talondg) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 20:31:26 -0000 Subject: Pink Flamingos/ Fourth Man Kayak and other ramblings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36543 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > BTW, did you feel a twinge of sympathy for Pettigrew when he said > the Dark Lord forced him to betray the Potters? I did (at least the > first time around) and Lupin's reaction still doesn't feel good for > me. I mean, "Who doesn't crack every once and a while?" Now, of > course, it looks like Pettigrew's guilty as sin. Nope, not me. Wormtail didn't just "crack", he had been spying and reporting on the Potters & friends for quite some time. And when Voldy seemed dead and gone, rather than come rescue his friend from Azkaban by turning himself in, he stayed in hiding for 13 years. If he had been captured and tortured into revealing the secret, and had immediately gone to the authorities the instant he got loose... OK. Torture will eventually break anyone, it's really just a matter of time. You're supposed to hang on for as long as you can, but it is assumed that as soon as you're captured, you _will_ spill your guts eventually. Had he been picked up, and the Potter's location be Crucio-ed out of him, he'd be blameless. But he didn't do that. Instead, he chose to collaberate with the enemy well past the point when he was in immediate danger. That's treason by anybody's books, and deserving of exactly what Sirius wished to give him. DG From uncmark at yahoo.com Thu Mar 14 22:02:04 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:02:04 -0000 Subject: Animagi and animal minds Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36544 Concerning Animagi and the animal urges of their magical forms, any fans of Piers Anthony's Xanth series might remember a theme of shapeshifters there. When Trent the transformer king or Dolph the shapeshifter prince did their magic, the transformed being felt urges of the animal form and had to be careful how long they were chamged. When Trent changed Bink into a Salimander to fight a foe, Bink had the salimanderish urge to burn everything. In the Potterverse, the 'Fantastic Beasts' writes there are few flying anamagi as the bat or bird brain forgets where there going. I wonder about the Anamagi in the Potterverse and how their animal urges affect them. As far as the cat and dog of McGonagall and Black, both animal forms are intelligent and resonably tame. But what about the Beetle of Rita Skeeter and Rat of Pettigrew? Pettigrew spent several years in rat-form and if anyone ever coulod be described as rattish, it was the Pettigrew of PofA and GofF. Was Skeeter affected by the buglike urges of her beetle form? I feel she was buglike to begin with, but her nature may have affected what form she tookwhen she became an anahagus. BTW does the wizard choose there anamagi form or is it dictated by their nature? I could picture Darco Malfoy studying to become an anamagi and becoming a dungbeetle. Opinions? Uncmark From porphyria at mindspring.com Thu Mar 14 22:48:04 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 17:48:04 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snapes' Whereabouts, Scar musings Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36545 Ronald Rae Yu wrote: Boggles replied: I have a slightly different take on this. The way that Dumbledore had set up the Mirror of Erised protection, Quirrell *couldn't* have gotten the stone out by himself. Ironically, he needed Harry's help. So I'm wondering if maybe after Snape got bitten by Fluffy Dumbledore pulled him aside and said something to the effect of 'look, this isn't worth your getting injured over; the Mirror will keep Quirrell from getting the stone. You should just relax, and if you insist, focus on protecting Harry.' And on the night that Quirrell went after the stone, it's not clear if Snape suspected the Trio of taking action. If anyone should have suspected them it was McGonagall because she was the one whom they begged to let them see the Headmaster to warn him. I do agree with the others who have remarked that it seemed like Dumbledore allowed Harry to encounter Quirrell as some sort of practice. If that was his plan, then I have no idea how he managed to keep Snape from interfering (since Snape doesn't share Dumbledore's fondness for letting Harry endanger himself). But maybe he did somehow, maybe he told him to back off. And speaking of Snape and Quirrell, Finwitch wrote, on the subject of scars: And Ali replied: Me: I think Ali it totally right on this one; Quirrell didn't even have the turban on in Diagon alley, so no Voldemort/no burning scar. Personally, I think the fact that Snape *was* looking right at Harry when his scar burned that night was what tipped off Snape that Quirrell was suspicious. Quirrell stated in no uncertain terms that Snape suspected him before the Halloween/Troll incident. So, why? Probably because Snape is familiar with a scar that burns due to Voldemort, and when he looks at Harry he puts two and two together. The fact that Harry's scar hurt him once in Potions class doesn't do much to implicate Snape; Harry's scar also burns him in Divination class, plus lots of other times in GoF; I feel it's safe to say it has more to do with Voldemort that former DE's. Also, Harry's scar never burned him in CoS when he met Lucius Malfoy, and you know LM's got the mother of all Dark Marks. However, I did notice on a recent rereading of GoF that when Voldemort summons the DE's in the graveyard scene that Harry's scar does burn him just as V. touches Wormtail's scar to do the summoning. So I am wondering if Harry will continue to feel his scar sting every time in the future when the DE's are summoned. Which could be sort of helpful for Dumbledore; although Snape can serve the same purpose. If any newbies are really interested, I did muse for several paragraphs on Harry and Snape's scars in post #35386 (it's right smack in the middle of the post). Basically I talked about how each scar is a conduit of power between LV and the bearer, and how the Pensieve scene seems to foreshadow future plot developments between Harry and Snape due to their similar afflictions. It would be amusing if these two characters could actually cooperate for once in seeing what they can determine about the nature/function of their scars and if they can discover any liabilities the scar could have for Voldemort For instance, maybe they could determine his location based on whose scar was hurting when...well, something like that. You get the idea. I'm still musing Amanda's suggestion that the DE's scars could link their lives to LV's, but I haven't come up with any new ideas for the rebuttals I got. Stay tuned, I'm still thinking... ~~Porphyria -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Thu Mar 14 22:48:55 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:48:55 -0000 Subject: Generational Parallel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36546 I think.. the generational parallels are certainly there... and JKR is using them to play on our expectations. Just one example: we can draw parallels between the Snape/James relationship, and the Draco/Harry relationship, right? In fact, we are encouraged to do so, by Dumbledore's words towards the end of SS. Now, I don't necessarily think this means Draco is going to work for the good guys, a la Snape. (Heck, I'm not too sure that Snape *really* is a good guy.) ::ducks:: But, because the parallel is there, that thought--that Draco might be redeemable--is in the back of our minds, right? The Precedent has been set. Based on this theory, I think JKR *wants* us to see Neville as Pettigrew. In fact, she has Harry make the connection in his mind in PoA, when he's imagining the Siruis-Peter confronation in the street. But I don't think things are going to turn out that way. (If a weaker tagalong does go bad, I predict it'll be a Creevey. I mean, why are there two Creeveys anyway? IMO, one is there to be cannon fodder; the remaining one will turn to Voldemort for revenge on Harry.) Caroline From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Mar 14 23:10:20 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:10:20 -0500 Subject: Harry Potter and the Jung interpreter Message-ID: <39C7C8C4.12E7FD5E.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36547 I was looking at the portkey (www.hpfgu.org.uk) the other day and spotted a link there I hadn't seen before, Philip Nel's 'JK Rowling on the web' page, which is essentially a list of links. It's excellent, and so I draw your attention to it. One particular link, in the literary criticism section there, is to an essay, (www.cgjungpage.org/articles/grynbaumpotter.html) by Gail A Grynbaum on the Jungian and alchemical symbolism that she finds in the books. We have had a few alchemical interpretations here before, is there any evidence from chats and interviews that this is something that JKR consciously puts in? I have checked Aberforth's Goat's search site (www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/), and there is one mention of the alchemists in an Amazon interview (search on 'alchemist') suggesting she knows a bit about it. The essay is very good, though it contains one or two oddities and the language is occasionally hard work. It is a very different way of interpreting the books than we mostly do here, and there are lots of ideas to be sparked from it for general discussion. Unfortunately the po The approach to interpretation also lends itself to a degree of prediction. Just to whet your appetites, here are a few that I have come up with. Unfortunately most of them relate to book 7. I won't try to explain how it works: read Grynbaum's essay. Harry will die at the end of book 7, probably shortly after Hagrid, who will continue to be important in all 7 books; He will SHIP Ginny, however, the nature of the ship will be outside of our rather impoverished platonic versus romantic polarity; Snape is not a vampire; Peeves will be important, particularly his relationship to Dumbledore; Voldemort will for a while occupy Harry's body, like he did with Quirrell; Ginny's character will be developed at the same time as Lily's history is revealed; in the book in which that happens the first time we see her Ginny will be asleep or otherwise lacking in life; In book 5 Harry will have a major foray by himself into the wizarding world outside Hogwarts (actually that is fairly predictable just from the increasing amount of involvement from one book to the next) Sirius (less sure about this one) will continue to be presented in a manner that leaves us feeling he's inconsistent. All the above IMO of course, and specifically dependent on the method of interpretation. I will try to substantiate the above assertions in later posts. David All predictions are subject to a policy of continuous improvement and may be withdrawn without notice or so much as a by-your-leave -- __________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Mar 14 23:40:10 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 23:40:10 -0000 Subject: Neville, with or without the Canary Creams In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36548 Elkins wrote: > I had then gone from > speaking to Kimberley to speaking to David, someone I was guessing, > on the basis of some of his previous writings, might feel a bit more > comfortable with a far more academic/analytical and far less > popular/"fannish" (personalized, interactive, extrapolative, > rebellious) approach to the text. I have rather stacked the case against myself recently, haven't I? But I only get uncomfortable when one approach is implied to be superior to another. >Most of my housemates, themselves Neville-types as children (what can I say? we tend to stick together), instinctively read the scene much as I did. > > Does JKR's Neville feel the same way though? Oh, probably not. (long list of interesting Neville points snipped) I'm slightly lost. Doesn't that list of points suggest that JKR *does* 'get' Neville? Or is that a third Neville, different from that of Hermione's imagination *and* your identification? Or are you just unconvinced by your own argument? David, now dreaming about the kitchen table in the Elkins household From kerelsen at quik.com Thu Mar 14 23:23:49 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 18:23:49 -0500 Subject: Character vocabulary and inner voices (was: Re: Pink Flamingos/ Fourth Man Kayak and other ramblings) References: Message-ID: <00b401c1cbaf$4ed546c0$7021b0d8@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 36549 ----- Original Message ----- From: "marinafrants" SNIP > A send-up of stereotypcial flamboyant gay behavior. It seems to be > accepted wisdom in the popular US media that gay men are fascinated by > interior decorating and say "marvelous" a lot. So when you compared > Snape to a flamboyant interior designer, the image popped up. Snape > is certainly flamboyant, and since I refuse to 'ship him I'm in no > position to make statements about which way he swings, but I refuse to > believe that the word "marvelous" would ever pass his greasy lips. I don't know... how about done in an extremely saracastic sneer a la "What a *marvelous* idea, Mr. Potter. I'm surprised no one else ever thought of using billiwigs in a Healing Potion!"? I don't think that I could read Snape saying the word using "maaaaahvahlos" pronounciation if I tried, though. Am I the only one who hears the character's voices in her head when she reads the dialogue? (No, I don't mean Alan Rickman's voice for Snape, but an "original" voice of my own wild imagination's concoction?) Bernadette "Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art. It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival." -- C.S. Lewis (1898-1963). From emmbp at yahoo.com Fri Mar 15 00:13:35 2002 From: emmbp at yahoo.com (emmbp at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:13:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Mrs. Figg/ Snape the Spy/ BMW2 In-Reply-To: <1016147261.2459.6000.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020315001335.96766.qmail@web13907.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36550 Just some wild speculations that I haven't seen discussed here: 1) Arabella Figg: We "know" that she is coming in the next book. We "know" that there will be a female DADA teacher before the end of the series. If she was placed near Privet Drive to protect Harry, she will definatly be well versed in the Defence against the Dark Arts. Dumbledore has placed her on alert. My money is on Mrs. Figg, the new DADA teacher. 2) Snape the Spy: I don't buy into the theory that Snape will return to spy for Dumbledore against LV. Voldy was there when Snape threatened Quirell in SS/PS. I think that Dumbledore has him slated for something different, perhaps involving Azkaban. Remember what he told Fudge the first two things after the return of LV. 1) Secure Azkaban and remove it from the dementors 2) Send an envoy to the Giants. Hagrid and Madame Maxine are obviously going to the Giants.... so what about Azkaban? Snape didn't look too happy about his assignment, but I don't think that anyone would look too happy with an assignment to visit Azkaban. 3) Flying Carpets/ BMW2: Somewhere on the net I saw posted a picture that was alleged to be the cover of the OotP (http://www.openflame.com/harrypotter/book5.html) I know it is probably just someone's best guess, but I have a hunch about the magic carpet theme that was introduced in GoF. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some carpets a la Aladdin in the next book. I ran a search on the archives and I didn't get anything back on flying carpets. Maybe that's the new magical place we've never seen before. :) I'm adding Flying Carpets to the HONDA list of BMW2. Brady (Who would love to see the look on Harry's face when he sees Mrs. Figg as his new DADA teacher. ) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/ From Zarleycat at aol.com Fri Mar 15 01:00:45 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:00:45 -0000 Subject: Death Eater Modus Operendi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36551 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "talondg" wrote: > Some thoughts on how the Death Eaters operated back when Voldy was at > his height. > > 2) There aren't all that many of them; a couple dozen at the most. > This means that, when compared to the size of the greater wizarding > community, they are greatly outnumbered. Huh? Where does the "couple of dozen" come from? My impression of the DEs is that there are quite a few of them, and that one of the reasons they are scary is that they can blend into "normal" wizard society. In GoF "Padfoot Returns" Sirius talks about how things were during V's first rampage - you don't know who the DEs are. All you know is that every day there are more stories about who has died, been tortured, disappeared, etc. I get the feeling that this is caused by more than 24 or 36 people... > 4) Most of the targets of the DEs (aside from the occasional Random > Act of Terror and Muggle Killing) are those who most openly oppose > the DEs and Voldy. These wizards are more likely to be stronger and > better defended than Joe Average, making them tougher targets. Hmm, not sure about this. It would seem that if this were the case, the good guys would be able to come up with a defense that would give a higher degree of protection to those who most openly oppose Voldy. Did Lily and James make a big deal of their opposition to V, and thus become greater targets, or was there something else afoot, which made them a target regardless of their opposition to the dark side? > 5) Aurors in particular seem very tough. They are not bound by the > restrictions on the Forbidden Curses as are the general public, and > they are highly trained in magical fighting. An Auror is probably > worth several DEs in a fight - tangling with an Auror is something to > be avoided at all costs. They were given permission to use the Unforgivable Curses, but does that automatically more powerful than the average DE? I don't think there is evidence of that. Think about the 20 hit wizards who showed up to bring Sirius Black into custody. Did they really need all these people unless they believed that Sirius had some way powerful Dark Magic? > From this, we can conclude that the MO of the Death Eaters is likely > to be similar to that of all guerillas/terrorist cells - lie low, > congregate quickly on a summons, strike en masse, and then get the > hell out of Dodge before the calvary shows up. I think that Voldy/DEs can pick a target and strike without a huge amount of DE activity. I don't think that hordes of DEs showed up to torture the Longbottoms - several would have probably done the trick. > 2) He sommons the DEs, who apperate in next to him. (And it would be > consistant with Voldy's personality that this summons would happen > without any prior warning, and that the speed at which a given DE > responded would be a measure of loyalty) Yes, but he can't be that stupid as to assume that speed alone is a measure of good Death Eater-ness. What if Lucius Malfoy, when summoned by his DE mark, is in a meeting at the MoM which has to do with whether or not Dumbledore should remain as Headmaster at Hogwarts? I would think that V would be more than happy to excuse Malfoy from showing up if he was engaged in deposing Dumbledore. > > This, then, begs two questions: > > 1) Was Voldy alone when he went after Harry and his parents? No, IMO, Wormtail was there. > 3) What happens if Harry uses Avra Kedavra on Voldy?? Voldy dies. Marianne From Zarleycat at aol.com Fri Mar 15 01:18:48 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:18:48 -0000 Subject: Do people like SYCOPHANTS? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36552 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > Sycophants make great characters at point. Note Grima Wormtongue and > Peter Pettigrew. But do people actually like them? Do you ever feel > sympathetic with a sycophant? When you read Elkins' Avery posts, do > you feel an urge to put your arms around Avery and tell him it'll be > all right, or do you think "Another stupid sycophant. They deserve > what they get?" > > When you read the Shrieking Shack scene for the first time, were you > feeling it more from Sirius/Lupin's angry POV or Pettigrew's > desperately afraid POV? > > Well, it might be something strange in me but I was seeing it from the > second POV. I have this tendency to get along well with sycophants, > neurotics and the rest. One of my first fanfics was about how Gollum > survived Mt. Doom and Merry and Pippin brought him back to the Shire > and reformed him by taking him swimming and on picnics. (I was very > young.) > Is this wide-spread phenomonem? Or are we only a few whose supply of > pity is infinite? Are we the same people who start pondering whether > Tom Riddle was cute as a baby? > Well, I'm one of those people who dissolve into puddles over puppies and kittens, but who see babies as noisy, smelly things that are not generally particularly attractive. Call me a hard-hearted bitch, but I could care less about how cute Tom Riddle may have been. I'm also a lapsed Catholic, for what that's worth. And, no, I have no sycophantic sympathy. My reading of Pettigrew in the Shrieking Shack scene was pretty much "do whatever you have to do as long as you can prove Sirius' innocence. Tie him up, burn him at the stake, strip him naked and paint him blue - I don't care." I would have had more sympathy for Peter had he once expressed any remorse or regrets for his actions. But, there was none. No regrets for being the agent of James and Lily's death. No concern for orphaning Harry. No regrets for sending Sirius to Azkaban for 12 years. No second thoughts about what Remus suffered with his support network gone. Peter grovelled and whined to everyone in the room looking for a soft touch to save him. Frankly, had I been in either Sirius' or Remus' shoes, I would have blasted Peter into next week and taken the consequences. He got off easy in my opinion. Marianne, she holding the hammer of retribution high in her doughty right hand!!! From tanie_05 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 15 01:55:43 2002 From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:55:43 -0000 Subject: Deathday Question??? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36553 Hey everyone. I stopped by because this has driven me up the wall *all day long*. Here's the sit: I was in class and was talking to my friends Steven and Anne. Steven was reading CoS and somehow, we got on the topic of Nearly-Headless- Nick and his Deathday. Then, to make a long story short, we got to the point on whether or not Harry knows when his parents died. Pro: Anne says that he knows when his parents died since we know. We see everything from his point of view. So, everything we know, Harry knows too. Con: However, Steven and I think that he doesn't know. In all the books, he sure seems to have a lot of fun to say that he knows that was the day his life was changed forever. He goes to a Deathday Party, a banquet every Halloween, I could go on but I'm not. You get the point. Which brings to the thing that bothers me: (takes a deep breath) If what Steven and I think is true, then how do we know James and Lily died on Halloween? My aunt borrowed my copy of SS/PS, so I can't check for myself. Your help would be much appreciated. -Kyrstyne(who is happy now that she may be able to move on from that nagging question) From Joanne0012 at aol.com Fri Mar 15 02:50:04 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 02:50:04 -0000 Subject: Deathday Question??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36554 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tanie_05" wrote: > If what Steven and I think is true, then how do we know James and > Lily died on Halloween? My aunt borrowed my copy of SS/PS, so I can't > check for myself. Your help would be much appreciated. Harry does know. Hagrid explains it during his Big Explanation when he picks up Harry at the hut-on-the-rock: "All anyone knows is, he turned up in the village where you was all living, on Halloween ten years ago. You was just a year old. He came ter yer house an' -- an' --" From editor at texas.net Fri Mar 15 03:23:48 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:23:48 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Where was Snape? References: Message-ID: <00a001c1cbd0$d3617460$b87c63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36555 Okay, I hate and despise combining messages, but just this once I'll make the effort, since they all deal with my favorite topic. Finwitch staunchly maintained: > We do know about Harry's scar - during Potion's exam it burned. > Quirrell wasn't there (and wasn't killing anyone) - so it had to do > with Voldemort (who might have been going with Snape for a chance). Me: Nope. Nice try. In the book, it discusses all of the exams, and then in the summation of how things had gone, says "Harry did the best he could, trying to ignore the stabbing pains in his forehead which had been bothering him ever since his trip into the forest." (first part of Ch. 16, book 1). So it was not particularly the potions exam, or potions class; it was a residual effect of encountering Quirrel&Voldemort in the forest. Snape had nothing to do with this. In another post, Finwitch said: > Does Snape *care* for anyone? Me: We have hardly been in a position to know. I presume you mean care fondly, as opposed to simply having a bond to anyone. The only thing we know for certain is that he does *not* care for Harry or Hermione or Ron. They also know this for certain, and return the sentiment. Our viewpoint is colored by Harry's, whose interpretation of a passionate kiss, were Snape involved, would manage to be on the negative side. We simply do not know anything else for certain about Snape's interpersonal affairs, with a few exceptions, such as --it's a fair bet that he dislikes Lockhart intensely; --he baits McGonagall when Gryffindor loses at Quidditch [which must itself feel odd for him, considering he was her student not all that long ago, too]; --the other teachers have absolutely no problems or compunction about leaping in to join him when he intiates the Lockhart-removal-action in the staffroom scene. --not only does Dumbledore trust him, he seems to trust Dumbledore, given the number of times he obeys him against his better judgement. None of these make it seem that he is anything but normal in his dealings with other teachers, at least, although probably a bit on the reserved side. But off the top of my head, that's all I can think of. So I'd be inclined to say yes, Snape does care about certain people. I'm betting his bar is set pretty high, though. Porphyria defended: > Eloise has covered this, but I need to reiterate it in my own words. > There is absolutely nothing psychopathic about resenting the guy who > saved your life. Which reminds me. It struck me after watching the movie, but it is true for the books. Harry never said boo to Snape, even after he found out Snape had saved his life. Personally, even if I hated someone, if they'd pushed me out of the path of a car or kept me from falling to my death, I'd thank them. I don't believe that this was an "off the page" occurrence, as Hermione's and Ron's birthdays must be, it's too important a detail of Harry/Snape interaction to let slide. So. Snape saved Harry from death and Harry doesn't even acknowledge it. Little self-centered brat. Then in PoA, Snape tries to save all three from what he perceives as a very dangerous situation. He truly believes that Sirius is a demented murderer (and a demented wizarding murderer is an order of magnitude above your average axe-wielding nut), and he knows for certain that Lupin is both a werewolf and unprotected. I am not for a minute saying he didn't want to be the one to catch Sirius and expose Lupin. Nobody over the age of three has truly single-minded motives. He is doing both; his effort to protect the children is genuine. And they do not listen and they do not appreciate what he's doing and they turn on him, attack, and injure him. Even if I'd had a very, very good reason for injuring someone I hated, I still would tell them I was sorry I did it. Again, I don't believe this would have been an "off the page" understood thing, like Dumbledore's filling Snape in on the truth between PoA and GoF. So. Snape tries to save the kids, they knock him out, and not only do they never appreciate what he did, they never apologize for their attack. Little self-centered brats. He has some justification for his attitude, I'm thinking. And lastly, only slightly related: Porphyria opined: > I have a slightly different take on this. The way that Dumbledore had set up > the Mirror of Erised protection, Quirrell *couldn't* have gotten the stone out > by himself. Ironically, he needed Harry's help. > So I'm wondering if maybe after Snape got bitten by Fluffy Dumbledore > pulled him aside and said something to the effect of 'look, this isn't worth > your getting injured over; the Mirror will keep Quirrell from getting the stone. Hmm. This tickled me into a realization. Snape got bitten before Harry found the mirror. Fluffy was in place at the time. I don't believe the Stone would have been in the mirror in an abandoned room; I think it was under the trapdoor, and Dumbledore hadn't had his stroke of genius about using the Mirror yet. Snape may well have been less concerned after the Mirror was part of the defenses of the Stone, even if he didn't know the details (Quirrell sure didn't, and he was one of its defense team, but he's not the lieutenant to Dumbledore that Snape is, either). This might explain why Snape wasn't in evidence; he was trying to block Quirrell from the Stone more than anything; Harry's involvement was kind of incidental. I've wondered why Harry was apparently an afterthought for Quirrell--you'd think Voldemort would want him dead--but from what Quirrell says, he went after Harry because Harry was an obstruction to his purpose. I'm guessing that Voldemort wanted a body first, and figured he could cook the kid later..? Thoughts? --Amanda, B.S. (Bastion of Snapology) From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri Mar 15 03:48:02 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 03:48:02 -0000 Subject: Real Wizards Don't Apologize & Fourth Man (WAS Crouch Jr and ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36556 Elkins wrote: > Like Eileen, I too find myself wondering if Crouch might not have > been telling the truth whenever I contemplate his behavior in > Penseive. Eileen added: > When you read the Shrieking Shack scene for the first time, were >you > feeling it more from Sirius/Lupin's angry POV or Pettigrew's > desperately afraid POV? My goodness! What's going on here? Are you guys starting to -- well, there's just no gentle way to say it -- go *Soft* on me? What am I hearing? Sympathy for Pettigrew? Doubt about Crouch Jr.'s guilt? What next ? Tom Riddle was just misunderstood? No, I don't think I can sign on for the Pity Party that seems to be forming here. Pettigrew was Evil. Evil, evil and really evil. He scurried off before he got what he deserved. Crouch Jr. was Evil, too. I'm not buying the "Help me Daddy, I wasn't involved" routine. Nope, not me. You know why I'm not cutting Pettigrew or Crouch Jr. a break? Because neither Pettigrew nor Crouch Jr. is *sorry*. See, the thing with JKR's characters is that they are very long on whining and begging and cringing and flinching and making excuses and pointing fingers, but they are very short on offering up heart-felt apologies and taking responsibility for things. Pettigrew never expresses any regret at all in the Shrieking Shack. Sirius never apologizes to Snape, Ron or Lupin. Snape never apologizes to Harry, Lupin, or Sirius. Ron never apologizes to Harry for being a prat in GoF or paying off a debt with vanishing gold; Harry never apologizes to Ron for bopping him in the head with a badge. Lupin never apologizes to Dumbledore for the werewolf adventures or for his hideous errors in judgment throughout PoA. McGonagall doesn't apologize for letting Crouch Jr.'s soul get away from her. Don't even get me started on Hagrid. So who is the only adult I can think of who gives a real, sincere apology at even the slightest provocation? Avery, that's who. He wastes no time at all offering up an apology at the first possible opportunity: Voldemort: "I confess myself disappointed . . . . " Avery: "Master! he shrieked, "Master, forgive me! Forgive us all!" . . . Voldemort: "*Crucio!*" And you see where Avery's apology got him. No, for some reason in JKR's world, real wizards don't apologize. It is apparently OK to say thank you, as Lucius does in the graveyard. Wormtail does quite a bit of thanking -- thanking Harry, thanking Voldemort. Groveling also seems to be well-regarded. But take it to the next level and actually apologize, and you'll be sorry. Now Hermione, she knows how to apologize. After a bit, she sucks it up and admits that Crookshanks ate Scabbers. But then again, she was apologizing for something that never happened. Like Avery, she jumped the gun. In fact, it is Ron who owes Hermione an apology, and I hope she's not holding her breath waiting for it. Wizards just don't *get* the concept of apologies, do they? Jamie asked (of Crouch Jr.): > > It's come up before that maybe he was under the Imperious Curse. > > How else could a man who spent most of his adult life in Azkaban > > perform such difficult magic unassisted? > Elkins replied: > It seems more than likely to me that casting ones lot in with Dark > forces really *does* grant one a certain boost in magical power. > If this is the case, then it could help to explain Crouch's magical > prowess. We know that he was exceptionally bright to begin with: he > got twelve O.W.L.S. I think we're going to have to bury the notion that Death Eaters are weak. Indeed, there's every reason to believe they are just as strong and capable as the Good Guys, even without whatever power boost they get from Voldemort. Crouch Jr. and Riddle were top students. Sirius may have been a top student, but he has, uh, some difficulty applying his academic success in the real world. Pettigrew has proven himself capable of complex Dark Magic. (BTW, Pettigrew would have gotten top marks at Durmstrang, where they actually teach Dark Arts, instead of Hogwarts, where they teach goofy subjects like Skrewt Control and Flobberworm Studies). Mrs. Lestrange, based on her few lines in GoF, sounds like someone who could take out McGonagall quite handily, leaving nothing but a pile of cat fur. Sure, the DEs were rather impotent in the graveyard. And whose fault was that? "Do nothing!" "Stun him!" "Leave him to me!" I mean, which is it? Personally, I think the shadows from the wands put one of those Shield Charms around Harry to protect him as he ran. So the DEs can shoot straight, thank-you-very-much, and are quite capable and strong despite their Indecisive Leader. Elkins again: > Because the Fourth Man Theory grew out of a previous "Redeemable > Avery" defense, many of the variants on Fourth Man are designed to > excuse or to defend his behavior, but if you like him better as a > thoroughly venal and villainous coward, then you're free to stick > with "No-Frills Fourth Man." Elkins, dear, hand me the "No-Frills Fourth Man" paddle, will you? No, not that one. The really *Big* one. That's the ticket. What's that? I'm supposed to paddle now? Oh, no. I'm not using this Big paddle to help row the Fourth Man kayak or anything. No, no. I plan on picking a serious fight with the other Fourth Man passengers, and I need this Big paddle to defend myself. You see, Fourth Man with Remorse is just, well . . . forgive me, but . . . it's kinda lame. I mean, how can Avery *possibly* have remorse? He apparated to the graveyard, for heaven's sake. And as I established above, no one in the wizarding world has any idea what proper remorse is. Remorse is *not* returning to the side of Evil the first time you get a Dark Mark hot flash, throwing yourself to the ground to beg forgiveness for not being Evil enough for the last decade, tolerating a few seconds of Crucio, and then continuing right along in your Evil old ways. No, Fourth Man with Remorse needs to be buried at sea. He is just excess weight slowing down the kayak. Although I'm always willing to be persuaded that Fourth Man with Remorse can be spared from walking the plank. Do kayaks even have planks? Maybe what I really want to see is "In Over His Head No-Frills Fourth Man." In this variant, Avery isn't Evil To The Core. He just kind of aspires to be Evil To The Core, but can't seem to get it right. Evil To The Core can't be taught; you either have it or you don't. Avery doesn't have a real knack for his chosen profession, but he's middle-aged and in too deep to make a career change. (Not that this has ever happened to me or anything). That way, I can reconcile Avery's failure to be Tough with his utter lack of remorse. Elkins again: > There's even a "Fourth Man With Innocence," in which Avery, although > he was indeed a Death Eater, was nonetheless utterly innocent of any > complicity at all in the Longbottom Affair and was arrested and > convicted solely on the basis of guilt by association with the > Lestranges. I beg your pardon? Do you mean that Avery is innocent because he couldn't muster the strength to actually aim his own wand directly at Frank Longbottom? Avery's Crucio curses were pinging off the walls or something, so that makes it OK? Or do you mean that he's innocent because he didn't think up the idea to torture poor Frank before Mrs. Lestrange did? To be innocent, all you have to be is slow-witted? Isn't the definition of Innocence getting rather lax under this theory? :-) Fourth Man with Innocence is crashing against the rocks, too. Avery can't be innocent if he went back to formerly-slimy-baby Voldemort. He just can't be. Can he? Elkins again: > Avery himself, although he sometimes shares the kayak with us, > doesn't get to express his own opinion on the matter, because he's > just an in-jokey parody of somebody else's fictional character, and > so doesn't count. ;^) Uh. No. I specifically recall kicking Avery out of the kayak weeks ago, and I don't even see bubbles marking the spot where he went down. He sank like a stone. I think his guilty conscience weighed him down. Now, if Jamie is brave enough to join us, we're going to have to give the kayak to someone else and move up to an inflatable 8-person raft with cupholders and an ice chest filled with cold Mimosas. I seem to have some of those Spam cubes left over from the last party on the Destroyer, too. Jake didn't seem to care for them. Cindy (noting that Arthur Weasley apologizes for blasting the Dursleys' living room to bits, but they're just Muggles so he probably figured no wizards outside the family would hear about it) From tanie_05 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 15 04:00:06 2002 From: tanie_05 at hotmail.com (tanie_05) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 04:00:06 -0000 Subject: Deathday Question??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36557 joanne0012 wrote: > Harry does know. Hagrid explains it during his Big Explanation when he picks up > Harry at the hut-on-the-rock: Ok, thanks. But to say that he knows what happened, he sure has a lot of fun on Halloween. I'm not saying he has to dwell on it, but at least acknowledge it or something. To me, it seems like it doesn't really matter to him. (I'm sure I'm wrong, but that's how it looks. At least to me anyway.) I mean my grandmother died on Halloween too, but I at least stop and say a rosary or a prayer for her every year before I go out and have fun. Hmmmm...maybe it's just me. Oh well. -Kyrstyne From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Fri Mar 15 05:06:41 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 05:06:41 -0000 Subject: Mad-Eye (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36558 Mad-Eye (from GoF, Chap. 35) (To the tune of My Guy) Dedicated to Pippin & Marina Hear the original at: http://www.buffnet.net/~ambrosia/home.htm THE SCENE: The DADA office. MOODY has dragged HARRY away from the crowd to interrogate him alone. To the shock of both HARRY and the reader, MOODY reveals himself as the Death-Eating culprit skulking about Hogwarts. HARRY (spoken): Karkaroff's gone? He ran away? But then - he didn't put my name in the goblet? MOODY (slowly): No. No, he didn't. It was I who did that. HARRY: No, you didn't You didn't do that. . . you can't have done... MOODY (music) Wasn't Karkaroff At that I must scoff, it's Mad-Eye HARRY Not Mad-Eye! MOODY I have been discreet, But it's Death I Eat, says Mad-Eye HARRY Not Mad-Eye! MOODY Lord Voldemort is free from his bonds and his shackles It's gonna raise my hackles If craven jackals Who have sold out the Dark Arts Have not been torn apart, says Mad-Eye HARRY You're mad, I . MOODY ..You can call me mad That's `cause you've been had by Mad-Eye HARRY The bad guy! MOODY It's a solid rule Good folks are all fooled by Mad-Eye. HARRY You cad, why? MOODY I pledged upon my sacred honor You were gonna be a goner I've been interfering With their Tri-Wiz steering as a spy. I got Hagrid at the dragons to let you peek To your minion Dobby I of gillyweed leaked. And I made sure everything that you said Was redirected right straight back to Ced. To show the Dark Lord that I'm on board, made Dad die With his Portkey I delivered Harry, a bulls-eye. He will make me his favorite son But even if he doesn't I still had fun And though I sound bonkers You're the one I've conquered for the V-guy. (As MOODY raises his wand, the door is blasted apart. He is thrown backward onto the floor. Enter, with incandescent fury, DUMBLEDORE, followed closely by SNAPE & McGONAGALL.) HARRY No one who Death Eats could take the heat from Dumble. DUMBLEDORE Let's rumble! HARRY He is a sage in one humungous rage to crumble. SNAPE & McGONAGALL (regarding MOODY) He's humbled! HARRY He may not be too young in years But now I see what Lord Voldemort deathly fears ALL (except MOODY) And all you Death Eaters You will wind up dead meat-ers when you stumble! And all you Death Eaters You will wind up dead meat-ers when you stumble! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (updated 3/12/02 with 24 new filks) From saintbacchus at yahoo.com Fri Mar 15 06:09:53 2002 From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 06:09:53 -0000 Subject: Fudge House + Percy's House In-Reply-To: <009701c1cb87$d8494af0$a920a4d5@satec.es> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36559 Elirtai sends us a poser: << I was thinking of Cornelius Fudge. So what house do you all think he came from? >> Hmmm...this is a tough one. The more I think about it, the more I wonder about the adult characters. It seems to be more difficult to classify them, although that might just be because we don't know as much about them. For example, if Aunt Petunia turns out to be magical after all, where would she go? She's not brave, probably not studious, definitely not earthy (hates kids and animals), and apparently not very ambitious. << - He's certainly not a Gryffindor. He's weak, he hasn't got what it takes to do the right thing when that would threaten his position. >> Agreed. Bravery involves risk, and he never does anything risky. << - Not a Ravenclaw, definitely - he's hopelessly incompetent. >> I disagree with this, because I don't think competence is an inherent Ravenclaw trait. I've known plenty of people who got through school without the brains to fill a thimble just because they studied hard. Or, as Colette more eloquently put it: "[She would do well no doubt] thanks to a prodigious memory which takes the place of real intelligence." << - And wouldn't you say he puts his ambitions above everything else? >> He's a politician through and through - and I mean that in the perjorative sense, not just as a word to describe people who hold public office. My money is on either Ravenclaw or Slytherin. I'm leaning towards Ravenclaw, though, because a Slytherin without common sense is in serious trouble. Okay, so here's the question: what about Percy? We know he was in Gryffindor, but wouldn't he have been better suited to Slytherin or Hufflepuff? He's shown far more in the way of ambition and blind loyalty than bravery. Ron even says at one point that Percy would be likely to turn in his family if it meant advancing his career. It might have been just a snarky, offhand comment, but there's a grain of truth to it, ne? Perhaps this is why Percy is so often the frontrunner in "Who will go bad?" polls - right next to Fudge. --Anna From zulyblue at yahoo.com Fri Mar 15 03:41:10 2002 From: zulyblue at yahoo.com (zulyblue) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:41:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: All things Green In-Reply-To: <1015974521.64486.18883.m6@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020315034110.95332.qmail@web20004.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36560 *Finally poking her head in after lurking for months* Hello! My all things green are all from PoA US hardcover edition. 1. "A sickly green creature with short little horns had pressed his face against the glass...." Page 154 2. The grindylow bared its sharp green teeth and then buried itself in a tangle of weeds in the corner" Also Page 154 3. "Where the mummy stood was a woman with floor-length black hair and a skeletal, green-tinged face- a banshee" Page 137 4. "They joined eachother, they crisscrossed, they fanned into every corner of the parchemnt; then words began to blossom across the top, great, curly green words that proclaimed...." Page 192 5. "Ron crawled to the four-poster and collapsed onto it, panting, his white face now tinged with green, both hands clutching his broken leg" Page 341 Zulyblue, who the sorting hat insists on putting in Ravenclaw, though I'm not quite sure why..... ===== Favorite song of the moment We sat around the table and we drank a bottle of wine and it poured around us like a moat till no one could get us and I was fine.... The Nields - Easy People __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/ From siskiou at earthlink.net Fri Mar 15 07:54:25 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 23:54:25 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Real Wizards Don't Apologize & Fourth Man (WAS Crouch Jr and ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69303522750.20020314235425@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36561 Hi, Thursday, March 14, 2002, 7:48:02 PM, cindysphynx wrote: > Ron never apologizes to Harry for being a prat in > GoF Sorry, but he does, or at least tries to . Here's the part from GoF: ********** Ron opened his mouth uncertainly. Harry knew Ron was about to apologize and suddenly he found he didn't need to hear it. "It's okay," he said, before Ron could get the words out. "Forget it." "No," said Ron, "I shouldn't've -" "Forget it, "Harry said. ********** > or paying off a debt with vanishing gold; He doesn't say: "I apologize." But he does say this: ****** "I didn't know leprechaun gold vanishes," Ron muttered. "I thought I was paying you back. You shouldn't've given me that Chudley Cannon hat for Christmas. ********** I'd see that as meaning he's sorry, though apologizing certainly doesn't seem to come easy to most people, may they be a wizard/witch or a Muggle ;) -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From violettaprimrose at hotmail.com Fri Mar 15 02:30:14 2002 From: violettaprimrose at hotmail.com (kmohdia) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 02:30:14 -0000 Subject: In support of Neville Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36562 I must say that Neville is not so a weak character as one percieves in the first impression. Dumbledore says about his parents when tells Harry in the GoF after Harry has been looking in the pensieve: "No. They are insane. They both are at St Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies And Injuries . I believe Neville still visits them , with his grandmother,during the holidays.They do not recognize him." So, after having such a traumatic childhood , I think he can be excused for his forgetfulness I think someone stated here in HPFGU that he might have a memory charm placed on by his grandmother for forgetting his past well, I think this is quite plausible if it is so . Also, I have seen in real life it's not easy for someone to ask/accept help. It takes courage to do so. Neville may lack a bit of self-confidence (due to being a pseudo-squib despite being part of a well-known wizarding family. But, he certainly does stand up to the trio when he fears they will make the house lose more points. He tackles Malfoy during the quidditch match. He is a Gryffindor in short. He isn't so "luckless " as that . Afterall, he did develop magical powers, get selected into Gryffindor - loses his toad,but finds it in the end despite being so poor in magical skills - he still passes (which makes me wonder how Crabbe and Goyle manage to do it). He may have "lost his parents ,but he has such a caring and loving grandmother. He doesn't seem to have any financial problems. Also, I think Neville has the advantage over Ron(with whom I am compelled to compare him with) - he has no ego problems, but he has enough self-respect to not feel sorry for himself, jealous of others, and further more he has no prejudice. I mean if someone's parents are in a "better-dead-than-living" state it would be natural for him to hate the kids of the death eaters. ( He only hates Malfoy and his gang after they are mean to him). Of course, Neville is not as strong a character as Harry and Hermione, but in my opinion he is worth not being "deleted." I think it probably will be Dumbledore/Ginny/Dobby. Sayanora, Mohammedi From jloveys at zoom.co.uk Fri Mar 15 02:47:35 2002 From: jloveys at zoom.co.uk (Jedi Knight Jo) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 02:47:35 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Female Death Eaters and Ron References: Message-ID: <02b601c1cbcb$c5a1cf00$40b868d5@jody> No: HPFGUIDX 36563 Ayla Pascal wrote: >>I, after reading the books, thought that Ron seemed quite ripe for picking for the dark side. He seems quite ambitious (the mirror incident in the first book of him being the head boy), and yet still very loyal. He doesn't listen to other people, (third book, scabbers incident), and in a huge family, is the only person who doesn't stand out. Is it that he's the only one that doesn't stand out, or the only one who's 'normal'? We have Bill, the 'cool' one who was head boy, Charlie the Quidditch ace with a strange dragon fixation, Percy who is, well, anal to say the least, Fred and George who are different purely because they're twins and have the humour on top, and Ginny, who is different in this family simply because she's a girl. He seems to come from a family of strong characters, so maybe he's just been shoved into the background all his life? Seeing himself as Quidditch captain and Head Boy may just be his desire to stand out coming through. Elirtai: >>Let's see. Dumbledore is the eldest (he's 150); we know wizards have long life spans, but not how long. How do we know he's that old? I can't remember reading anything that says his age on it, although he must be pretty old since he was teaching at the school fifty years previously when Riddle was there (and is Hagrid in his sixties then if he was third year when that happened and it was fifty years ago? He looks good for his age ;)). Ayla again: >>And I have one small question about Death Eaters. In the fourth book, at the end, it almost seems like that Voldemort disregards all the female Death Eaters (assuming that there are any, and that assumption comes from Harry, who said to Draco at the beginning of the fourth book, about his parents being out on the field in black cloaks and masks, and what would he know about it). So are there any female death eaters? I couldn't find any other references to them in the GoF. Weren't the Lestranges a husband and wife pair of death eaters that were in Azkaban? I know Voldemort refers to them as he's going round his circle in GoF and comments at one of the empty spaces that they 'should have been here'. I have a question too: Why exactly does Ron have Charlie's old wand? I know he has a lot of hand me downs, but wouldn't Charlie need his wand? I thought a wizard kept their wand until it broke or got lost or whatever - if the wand is tuned to the wizard, surely a new one wouldn't fit that well if the old one was still working? --Jo From chynarose8 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 15 04:06:54 2002 From: chynarose8 at hotmail.com (abigail_draconi) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 04:06:54 -0000 Subject: Psyco Snape (was Re: Where was Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36564 Finwitch had mentioned that she thought that Snape was a psycho path. I happen to disagree with her assesment of Snape's mental health. >From what I have seen of Snape, he does not fit the criteria for psychopathy, which according to the DSM-IV is officially called Antisocial Personality Disorder. I decided to drag out my Abnormal Psychology textbook and check Snape's behavior against what it says. To apply the ASP diagnosis, the DSM-IV requires that the individual be 18 years old, there is evidence that warreants an earlier diagnosis of Conduct Disoder, onset before the age of 15, and a pervasive pattern of disregard or violation of others as evidenced by at least three of the following: (1) failure to conform to socis-legal norms as denoted by repeated acts that are grounds for arrest; (2) irritability and aggressiveness, as seen in repeated fights or assaults; (3) consistent irresponsibility in work or financial obligations; (4) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead; (5) deceitfulness, as indicated in lying or conning; (6) reckless disregard for one's own or other's safety; or (7) lack of remorse. [Case Studies in Abnormal Behavior Fifth Edition; Robert Myers p195- 196] Currently, there is little evidence about Snape being a kid, let alone what he was like. And what little there is, shows Snape as mentally normal. (1) failure to conform to socis-legal norms as denoted by repeated acts that are grounds for arrest: Okay, so he joined a gang of Really Mean People for a while. But that, and following Remus that one time, are the only indications that Snape has ever broken the rules. (2)irritability and aggressiveness, as seen in repeated fights or assaults: Okay, he does act a bit irritable and has a habbit of verbably assaulting various students. But give me eveidence it *ever* got physical. (3) consistent irresponsibility in work or financial obligations: Snape, is the wizarding equivolent of a chemistry teacher. And he has been one for *years*. I don't think Dubmledor would allow him to contiue teaching if he was irresponsible. I don't think he'd be *alive* if he was irresponsible. When your working with things that may just possibly blow up in your face literally. (4) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead: Again, look at his job. He couldn't be as good a potions professor if he were impulsive or failed to plan ahead. Hades, you couldn't be a *teacher* if you continually failed to plan ahead. I mean, think of all those lesson plans he has to make up... (5)deceitfulness, as indicated in lying or conning: I personally don't remember any time when he outright lied or tried to con some one. (6)reckless disregard for one's own or other's safety: Snape certainly is concerned with his own safety, and he has insured the safety of others on numorous occations. In fact I personally think that his main problem with Nevile is the issue of safety. (7)lack of remorse: Ah yes. The lack of remorse. Personally, I fell that if he showed no remorse, he never would have turned Dumbledor's spy *and* he would have let the life debt drop at the time of James' death (at least that's IMHO). Of course, I welcome anyone who wants to dispute what I have said. I admit to the fact that I kind of like Snape. I may even understand him. @---<-- Chyna Rose From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri Mar 15 09:03:55 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:03:55 -0000 Subject: Real Wizards Don't Apologize & Fourth Man (WAS Crouch Jr and ) In-Reply-To: <69303522750.20020314235425@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36565 cindysphynx wrote: > > > Ron never apologizes to Harry for being a prat in > > GoF > Susanne replied: > Sorry, but he does, or at least tries to . > > Here's the part from GoF: > > ********** > Ron opened his mouth uncertainly. Harry knew Ron was about > to apologize and suddenly he found he didn't need to hear it. > > "It's okay," he said, before Ron could get the words out. "Forget > it." > > "No," said Ron, "I shouldn't've -" > > "Forget it, "Harry said. > ********** I think this supports Cindy's point. Harry does *not* want Ron's apology. Ron will be less likely to try in future. Cindy jokes about Avery, but it's a real theme, IMO: the difficulty they have apologising shows us how 'damaged' (JKR's words about Lupin in an interview, IIRC) the characters are. We don't know for sure what passed between Lupin and Dumbledore on the morning he left, but there is an awkwardness about Lupin insisting on taking his own bags that suggests they still haven't really cleared the air. Am I the only person who dislikes the expression 'suck it up'? David From Breemgrrl at aol.com Fri Mar 15 04:15:30 2002 From: Breemgrrl at aol.com (Breemgrrl at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 23:15:30 EST Subject: Divination important down the line/other silly musings Message-ID: <162.a602b27.29c2cf62@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36566 OK, so it's not much of a stretch to accept Trelawney as mostly a windbag and a fraud. But I can't help but wonder if divination will become more important and impressive as the series goes on. As gets pointed out quite often, JKR rarely seems to drop in plot elements just for the heck of it. After all, DADA seemed like little more than a running joke for the first couple of books, with teachers having about as much longevity as drummers in Spinal Tap, but it's become increasingly more serious, and useful, as the books progress (though still without much chance for tenure). Speaking of DADA - and forgive me, I've only read the books once (so far) - is there any evidence that Snape actually wants that post other than the ever-so-reliable "everyone knows"? Does he ever actually state that he aspires to it? And on a side-note about divination ... though, of course, Ron's predictions in GoF could be self-fulfilling prophecies, seems to me he might have a nascent spark of the Sight, as another favorite author calls it. One of her regular characters has it, it's just part of her life and the visions happen as a matter of course. If she gives you a gift or tells you something, you know it's for a reason. *** All the debate about LOLLIPOPS and the fact that Harry has his mother's eyes (a detail which somehow escaped my notice at first, dopey me) have, for some reason, got the song "Lily's Eyes" from the musical version of "The Secret Garden" running through my brain. If I had half a talent, I'd feel a filk coming on ... Though I'm not quite in the LOLLIPOP kayak (boat? whatever) yet, I'm swimming toward it. (So, yes - I do like Snape. He's most certainly not a nice man, but then, I wouldn't be quite so fascinated by him if he were.) *** One other quick question - is the Sorting Hat others have mentioned the one on the main WB page for the movie, or is there another one somewhere? Susan P. (Who hopes she hasn't made a complete idiot of herself in her first post as a newbie and is going to lurk a bit more while trying to find the threads to stitch her very own Potions Master from the darling Harry Potter cross-stitch book she just got from Amazon.fr.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chynarose8 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 15 04:56:45 2002 From: chynarose8 at hotmail.com (abigail_draconi) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 04:56:45 -0000 Subject: Animagi and animal minds Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36567 Uncmark had asked >>BTW does the wizard choose there anamagi form or is it dictated by their nature? I could picture Darco Malfoy studying to become an anamagi and becoming a dungbeetle.<< Personally, I favor the dictated by nature form of anamagi creation. Even if it *is* up to the wizard to choose, their nature would guide them to the form they choose. I mean, it's basicly asking said wizard or witch to answer the question: If you could be any animal in the world what you be? Although I don't see Draco as a dungbeetle. A peacock or a rooster, maybe. Some sort of animal that struts around to impress. But then, I happen to like Draco; in fact I'm pettioning my current muses to add him to the roster. chynarose From ruben at satec.es Fri Mar 15 07:10:38 2002 From: ruben at satec.es (elirtai) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:10:38 -0000 Subject: Fudge House + Percy's House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36568 Anna gave us something to think: [snip] > For example, if Aunt Petunia turns out to be magical > after all, where would she go? She's not brave, > probably not studious, definitely not earthy (hates > kids and animals), and apparently not very ambitious. That's a tough one. We'd need a new house for her, and its symbol would be a... a... oh, it IS a tough one :-) > I disagree with this, because I don't think competence > is an inherent Ravenclaw trait. I've known plenty of > people who got through school without the brains to fill > a thimble just because they studied hard. Yes, but wouldn't you rather think those belong in Hufflepuff? [snip] > My money is on either Ravenclaw or Slytherin. I'm > leaning towards Ravenclaw, though, because a Slytherin > without common sense is in serious trouble. That was my point, actually - you don't need to be a Ravenclaw to achieve competence, but all Ravenclaws do show us a good supply of brains (if nothing else). And Fudge doesn't. My impression is that Fudge *is* slowly getting himself (and everyone else) in deep trouble. I think the situation will become bigger in every sense than he can handle, and that he won't have a happy end. That's a prediction. > Okay, so here's the question: what about Percy? We know > he was in Gryffindor, but wouldn't he have been better > suited to Slytherin or Hufflepuff? He's shown far more > in the way of ambition and blind loyalty than bravery. > Ron even says at one point that Percy would be likely to > turn in his family if it meant advancing his career. It > might have been just a snarky, offhand comment, but > there's a grain of truth to it, ne? I don't think so. He wouldn't go that far, he would choose loyalty over his ambitions if faced with an extreme case. I agree completely that he seems to be suited for Hufflepuff. What I think is there's more to Percy than meets the eye, but so far his Gryffindor qualities have been quite underdeveloped. He may show them after some eye-opening experience - for example, if directly approached by the Death Eaters. Actually, something like that might cost him his life. We know the series will become darker, and Percy is becoming a living target: working at the MoM, with known weaknesses, and a Weasley... Oh, now I feel like Trelawney. I don't seem to predict anything but bad things :-P Elirtai From siskiou at earthlink.net Fri Mar 15 09:18:42 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:18:42 -0800 Subject: Wands, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Female Death Eaters and Ron In-Reply-To: <02b601c1cbcb$c5a1cf00$40b868d5@jody> References: <02b601c1cbcb$c5a1cf00$40b868d5@jody> Message-ID: <153308579787.20020315011842@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36569 Hi, Thursday, March 14, 2002, 6:47:35 PM, Jedi wrote: > I have a question too: Why exactly does Ron have Charlie's old wand? > I know he has a lot of hand me downs, but wouldn't Charlie need his > wand? Maybe they "outgrow" their wands? I've been wondering if first years are given "beginners" wands, because I could certainly see them use it, accidently or on purpose, for destructive purposes if they were "full power". Hermione already knows a lot of spells before her lessons even start, and I have visions of an eleven year old getting really mad at someone and using a curse that's not so easy to reverse/repair. But on the other hand, how important *is* the wand really for wizarding purposes? Is it just like a crutch or really needed? If you lose your wand, are your powers gone? Dumbledore manages just fine without a wand, but is this a rare thing, or something you learn with experience? Maybe Charlie is doing just fine without a wand? -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no Fri Mar 15 10:36:40 2002 From: pengolodh_sc at yahoo.no (pengolodh_sc) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:36:40 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Upkeep - How big is the community? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36570 --- In HPforGrownups, "joanne0012" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups, "Felicia Rickmann" wrote: [snip] > > In that case, any ideas anyone on exactly how big the > > wizarding community within the UK is, or would need to be? > > It's an interesting point to ponder as magic can onloy do > > so much mending and organising within the school I suppose. [snip] > But the underlying point is that the number of students > (whatever that is) is in direct proportion to the size of the > wizarding community. [snip] > So the ratio of supporting adults to supported students would > be higher among wizards than among muggles for two reasons -- > the longer lifespan, and the shorter number of years of > education provided. If you assume from evidence in the books that the average wizard/witch lives twice as long as the average muggle (a reasonable assumption IMHO), you can extrapolate the ratio - basically the total wizarding-population of the UK should be roughly twenty times as large as the number of students at Hogwarts. Best regards Christian Stub? From adatole at yahoo.com Fri Mar 15 11:14:06 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (adatole) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:14:06 -0000 Subject: Wands In-Reply-To: <153308579787.20020315011842@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36571 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne wrote: > Maybe they "outgrow" their wands? > > I've been wondering if first years are given "beginners" > wands, because I could certainly see them use it, accidently > or on purpose, for destructive purposes if they were "full > power". ************* Then why would Harry have the "brother" of Voldemort's wand? The one that Voldy uses against him in GoF? No, the wand chooses the wizard, and it's for life. However, like any tool, the wand could suffer from wear and tear. And from the description it has. Charlie, perhaps upon graduation or when he saved up enough on his new job, went and bought himself a new wand. And that meant his old one was OK. Now the really interesting question is that such emphasis was placed on Harry's wand (no other wand will work as well for you). Which makes you wonder how much better Ron would have been at his lessons if he had a wand that was his. > > But on the other hand, how important *is* the wand really > for wizarding purposes? > Is it just like a crutch or really needed? > > If you lose your wand, are your powers gone? *************** It's a focus, a tool. You still have the abilities (in SS/PS Harry is able to leap short buildings, regrow hair, shrink sweaters, etc all without training or a wand. In PoA he blows up Aunt Marge, and then the cupboard where all his stuff is locked blows open on it's own.) but it is harder to get the specific desired result. > > Dumbledore manages just fine without a wand, but is this a > rare thing, or something you learn with experience? ************* Personally I think building itself has massive numbers of enchantments that are specifically tuned to people with certain roles. I believe the headmaster of Hogwarts has the equivalent of the Maurauder's Map but with even MORE information. I think he is able to manipulate certain elements (the accoutrements of the great hall, etc) at will. But that aside, I do believe Dumbledore would do fine without a wand. At his age he is so practiced at focusing the magical energies that a wand would be redundant for all but very complex magic. Leon From Joanne0012 at aol.com Fri Mar 15 11:28:05 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:28:05 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Upkeep - How big is the community? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36572 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pengolodh_sc" wrote: > If you assume from evidence in the books that the average > wizard/witch lives twice as long as the average muggle (a reasonable > assumption IMHO), you can extrapolate the ratio - basically the total > wizarding-population of the UK should be roughly twenty times as > large as the number of students at Hogwarts. Ah, yes. But that's where the plot thickens! Please, let's not get back into the debate about the number of students at Hogwarts; this board and the Lexicon have exhausted that. A further complication is that although wizards might naturally have the potential for a much longer lifespan, the higher death rate during Voldemort's reign might have diminished that 20x ratio. But undoubtedly it's higher than the ratio of muggle adults to muggle-school students. From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri Mar 15 11:28:46 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:28:46 -0000 Subject: Fudge House + Percy's House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36573 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "saintbacchus" wrote: > << > - Not a Ravenclaw, definitely - he's hopelessly > incompetent. > >> > > I disagree with this, because I don't think competence > is an inherent Ravenclaw trait. I've known plenty of > people who got through school without the brains to fill > a thimble just because they studied hard. Yes, but the defining Ravenclaw quality is intelligence, not good grades. Not-too-bright people who get through school by working extra-hard would end up in Hufflepuff. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From Edblanning at aol.com Fri Mar 15 11:46:17 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 06:46:17 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Scar musings/SUCCESS/Fourth Man/Bagman (is still evil) Message-ID: <2f.23ef2e20.29c33909@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36574 Porphyria: > I think Ali it totally right on this one; Quirrell didn't even have the > turban on in Diagon alley, so no Voldemort/no burning scar. Personally, I > think the fact that Snape *was* looking right at Harry when his scar burned > that night was what tipped off Snape that Quirrell was suspicious. Quirrell > stated in no uncertain terms that Snape suspected him before the > Halloween/Troll incident. So, why? Probably because Snape is familiar with > a scar that burns due to Voldemort, and when he looks at Harry he puts two > and two together. > > The fact that Harry's scar hurt him once in Potions class doesn't do much > to implicate Snape; Harry's scar also burns him in Divination class, plus > lots of other times in GoF; I feel it's safe to say it has more to do with > Voldemort that former DE's. Also, Harry's scar never burned him in CoS when > he met Lucius Malfoy, and you know LM's got the mother of all Dark Marks. > Eloise: Absolutely. Harry's scar doesn't hurt when he meets Snape's gaze at the end of GoF. Can I just clarify the first paragraph? From what I remember of your original post, Snape was putting two and two together (as only he can, as canon would put it) because he felt his Dark Mark at the same time as he observed Harry's reaction to the pain in his scar? If that's not what you meant, it certainly how I now read it, thanks to your inspiration. And of course, *that*s why the Dark Mark acts as an identifier. It doesn't matter how visible it is. I 've always had problems with this identifier concept anyway: you're not exactly going to show anyone the Dark Mark, unless you're certain that the person you're showing it to is on your side already, are you? But there must be situations where, given the secretive nature of the organisation, DEs might not recognise each other. Lots of potential for friendly fire incidents, and all that. So DEs *feel* their own Mark burning or tingling or something when they're in the presence of another DE so that they know they're in safe company. Perhaps that's why Snape suddnly clutches at his arm during the pyjama party: it's not just guilt, or whatever emotion you want to ascribe to him at that point; Moody's presence and particularly his thoughts about Snape as DE are actually affecting the Mark. Now, I wonder whether that set alarm bells ringing? I wonder if he told Dumbledore? Whether it helped Dumbledore eventually make the connection? Porphyria: >I do agree with the others who have remarked that it seemed like Dumbledore >allowed Harry to encounter Quirrell as some sort of practice. If that was his >plan, then I have no idea how he managed to keep Snape from interfering (since >Snape doesn't share Dumbledore's fondness for letting Harry endanger himself). >But maybe he did somehow, maybe he told him to back off Eloise: The problem I addressed with my SUCCESS theory. Now I have to make an amendment to the acronym. Since I've decided that I think the 'potion in the pumpkin juice' scenario is the most likely way for Quirrell to have disabled Snape, and I'm not sure that potions can strictly be held to 'concuss' anyone, it's now: Snape, Unfortunately Comatose, Couldn't Ensure Stone's Safety. Cindy: > Maybe what I really want to see is "In Over His Head No-Frills Fourth > Man." In this variant, Avery isn't Evil To The Core. He just kind > of aspires to be Evil To The Core, but can't seem to get it right. > Evil To The Core can't be taught; you either have it or you don't. > Avery doesn't have a real knack for his chosen profession, but he's > middle-aged and in too deep to make a career change. (Not that this > has ever happened to me or anything). That way, I can reconcile > Avery's failure to be Tough with his utter lack of remorse. > Eloise: Thanks for the further clarification on the Fourth Man side-orders. I was about to ask what exactly Fourth Man with Remorse was remorseful for and you've made it clear. Make that a double order of "In Over His Head No Frills". And that's not just because I don't want to be hit over the head with a large paddle. Does anyone else see a parallel with Fudge - that's the evil incarnation of Fudge, BTW, not that good-hearted ineffectual little chap rumpured to be the Minister for Magic. Definitely in over his head, without a knack for his chosen profession, but even worse. I don't think he aspires to anything but his own convenience and safety. While we're on the subject ( whisks out F.L.Y.I.N.G.H.E.D.G.E.H.O.G. badge, pausing only to make out the tiny writing that Tabouli has so helpfully inscribed on it Ah, yes, F.L.Y.I.N.G.H.E.D.G.E.H.O.G. (Fearful League Yabbering "Innocent Narratives Generally Harbour Enemies, Death-eaters, Grim Henchmen Or Gangsters"), I don't know whether this was quoted this as evidence in the 'Ludo Bagman is Ever so Evil' campaign: 'Bagman?' said Harry sharply. 'Are you saying he was involved in -' 'Nah,' said George gloomily. 'Nothing like that. Stupid git. He wouldn't have the brains.' Looks like a classic case of JKR misinformation, to me. Eloise (sporting her ner Exploding S.N.A.P. (Snape's Not A Psycopath) badge) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From adatole at yahoo.com Fri Mar 15 11:47:13 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (adatole) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:47:13 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Upkeep - How big is the community? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36575 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "joanne0012" wrote: > Ah, yes. But that's where the plot thickens! Please, let's not get back into the > debate about the number of students at Hogwarts; this board and the Lexicon > have exhausted that. A further complication is that although wizards might > naturally have the potential for a much longer lifespan, the higher death rate > during Voldemort's reign might have diminished that 20x ratio. But undoubtedly > it's higher than the ratio of muggle adults to muggle-school students. **************** I would also argue that the nature of wizards and the chances they take would keep the population low. It seems that the most "suburban" of wizards still perform magic which appears wildly dangerous - flying cars without parachutes or even safety glass, flying a broom from which you could fall and splatter on the ground, even the game "exploding snap" seems that it has the chance to harm or even maim. Part of this, as discussed in recent posts, is that wizards seem to have a natural "immunity" from normal harm. Neville falls from the window and bounces. In SS/PS I've always wondered that HRH jumped down the trap door without any regard for what was at the bottom, falling a looooooong way, without so much as a scratch. A huge marble statue smacks Ron across the head but he makes it though OK. Etc. "Splinching" (Apparating and leaving part of yourself behind) does not sound like something that a Muggle would live through to laugh about. Anyway, my point is that there is a group of people who can withstand more physical punnishment, but they engage in activities that are SIGNIFICANTLY more dangerous than even their tolerances would allow. Therefore I think that more wizards die, per capita, by "accidents" and that keeps the population lower than Muggle levels also. Leon From Edblanning at aol.com Fri Mar 15 12:05:07 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:05:07 EST Subject: I'm Called Mrs Norris (Filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36576 A FLIRTIAC Filk, to the melody of 'I'm called Little Buttercup', from HMS Lollipop... I mean Pinafore. I'm called Mrs Norris - just Mrs Norris, Nobody ever knows why But still I'm called Norris - just Mrs Norris, Plain Mrs Norris I ! I'm grey and skeletal - the people I meet all Think I'm just a scrawny old cat; But I have a history - I'm really a mystery My name is a pointer to that. Am I Filch's lover, though sworn to another? Am I only feline since cursed? Did Argus' devotion and Kittygro Potion Transform me so I can't reverse? I'm called Mrs Norris - just Mrs Norris, One day you'll surely know why You don't know my first name, but only my spouse's name, Filch's cursed sweetheart am I! Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ali at zymurgy.org Fri Mar 15 13:16:55 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:16:55 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the Jung interpreter In-Reply-To: <39C7C8C4.12E7FD5E.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36577 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., dfrankiswork at n... wrote: > One ... essay, (www.cgjungpage.org/articles/grynbaumpotter.html) by Gail A Grynbaum on the Jungian and alchemical symbolism that she finds in the books. > The essay is very good, though it contains one or two oddities and the language is occasionally hard work. It is a very different way of interpreting the books than we mostly do here, and there are lots of ideas to be sparked from it for general discussion. After reading your post I too went to read Gail Grynbaum essay, and now throughly fear for Harry's future. My mind is now full of ideas and arguments that I can't yet put onto paper! > The approach to interpretation also lends itself to a degree of prediction. Just to whet your appetites, here are a few that I have come up with. Unfortunately most of them relate to book 7. I won't try to explain how it works: read Grynbaum's essay. > > Harry will die at the end of book 7, probably shortly after Hagrid, who will continue to be important in all 7 books; As Grynbaum argues that Harry is the moral antithesis of Voldemort, so it would seem to make sense that he will die. Just as Voldemort pursues eternal life to save himself, so Harry must ultimately choose death to save others. Dumbledore told Harry in PS/SS that death was but the next stage to the well ordered mind. I've always thought that that statement was from Dumbledore the philosopher, but maybe it was from Dumbledore the teacher. (ie Dumbledore telling Harry how he should be, rather than Dumbledore telling Harry what he, Dumbledore believes). I don't understand where Hagrid fits into this pattern. I suppose I have he, or for some reason Molly Weasley marked to die in OoP. I also continue to hope that because Harry Potter has always been marketed as a children's series that the publishers would not have agreed if the hero of 7 books ended up dead. > He will SHIP Ginny, however, the nature of the ship will be outside of our rather impoverished platonic versus romantic polarity; Do you mean that Harry and Ginny will have a relationship based on romance but never fulfilled - isn't this platonic? I can certainly think of close male friends who I was initially "attracted" to, but instead became "good mates" with, or are you suggesting something much deeper? > Voldemort will for a while occupy Harry's body, like he did with Quirrell; I'm not saying that this won't happen, but up til now Harry has always managed to withstand Voldemort. Will the boy who can (unusually) withstand Voldemort's Imperiatus curse really be possessed by him? > Ginny's character will be developed at the same time as Lily's history is revealed; in the book in which that happens the first time we see her Ginny will be asleep or otherwise lacking in life; I also believe that Ginny will be developed much more in future books. I also wonder (as loads of others do) whether Lily will be whiter than white. Perhaps this will be another of JKR's plot twists, and the seeming familiarity Voldemort has with Lily will show a darker side to her character: Yet another example of the choices over Good and Evil. Lily's ultimate sacrifice to save Harry redeeming herself. (Perhaps she betrayed James?). I'm waiting to see how this backstory develops, and I guess nothing will surprise me! Well you've certainly got me thinking, and that's quite difficult to do on a Friday afternoon! Ali From tabouli at unite.com.au Fri Mar 15 13:51:02 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:51:02 +1100 Subject: New recruits, Snape's childhood, Ravenclaw, sucking it up Message-ID: <008801c1cc2d$1f1132e0$3531c2cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 36578 Morning dawns over the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS, and Captain Tabouli stirs at last. As she rises from her bed and totters sleepily towards the wardrobe, she notices a small pink envelope an excited crew member must have shoved under her door during the night: Crew member's note: > Psst, Captain: I think we may have a potential new recruit swimming our way! Look what our spies heard on shore! Spy's report: *** Susan P.: > Though I'm not quite in the LOLLIPOP kayak (boat? whatever) yet, I'm swimming toward it. (So, yes - I do like Snape. He's most certainly not a nice man, but then, I wouldn't be quite so fascinated by him if he were.)< *** The Captain's bleary eyes brighten. She makes a mental note to tell her marketing representative to approach Susan P personally with a life-raft and a hot drink, and let her know that LOLLIPOPS is no mere kayak, but a tall and stately Ship, with luxury accommodation for all LOLLIPOPS flavours, including blood (for the Snape as Vampire who Loved Lily enthusiasts), flamingo (for the Snape Will Love Again brigade), and bitter lemon (the hardline, all-day sucker version, which proposes that Love of Lily was behind *everything*, from Snape's eagerness to catch out the Marauders to his decision to both join and later leave the Death-Eaters). Just as she is about to put this report in her in-tray, a second spy report falls to the floor, reporting words attributed to Finwitch: > Does Snape *care* for anyone? Ahaaaa, chuckles the Captain, *clearly* rhetorical. Apparently Finwitch believes that Snape does not appear to care for anyone. And why is that, might one ask? Because the one person in the world he *really* cared for, with all his greasy, bitter heart, was brutally slain at the hands of his former employer because he failed in his spying duties. Worse still, the son she died for *lived* to attend his Potion classes, and has her eyes staring out of the hated, hated face of James Potter! He loathed the child on sight, but then, since Lily died, he seems full of loathing for most people. He respects Dumbledore, who took mercy on him in his darkest hour, and has a friendly rivalry with McGonagall (and perhaps a certain mutual empathy with fellow unlucky-in-love Filch), but as for caring, and close personal relationships, there seems room for them in him any more. Besides which, if he is to maintain his ruse that he is still loyal to Voldermort (despite court announcements to the contrary) in front of his House full of Death-Eaters' children, he can't *afford* to be caring in public. What sort of Death Eater would do that? Chyna Rose: > Currently, there is little evidence about Snape being a kid, let alone what he was like. And what little there is, shows Snape as mentally normal.< The little evidence we do have does not suggest a happy childhood. As Sirius reports in GoF, he arrived at school (aged 11) knowing more curses than half the kids in seventh year. I imagine even Hermione didn't go that far. Why did he study up on curses so obsessively? To me, this suggests a resentful, damaged child who feels powerless and has secretly been plotting revenge on those who damaged him (which, given his mistrustful nature, could well have been his parents or guardians). This also fits in with someone who bullies his students: it's not at *all* common for those bullied by those in authority over them to become bullies towards those over whom *they* have authority later in life. Also his reputed "clever and cunning" nature... I could see a bright child developing an underhand cleverness in an abusive situation, both to avoid abuse and exact retribution without getting caught. Also the ambition: they told me I was worthless and stupid and persecuted me... *I'll* Show 'Em. That's what I think Snape wants: not glory, not popularity, but a sort of vengeful vindication. Then there's the adolescence evidence. The cool, handsome, popular-boy-that-was Sirius describes him as "slimy, oily and greasy-haired". Doesn't sound a lad likely to be surrounded by friends and admirers, does he? We know that Snape was always snooping around trying to get the Marauders expelled, to the extent of the Prank. We know he *hated* James, and *hates* Sirius. I say he was being taunted by the cool popular kid and the Quidditch star. OK, so he hung around with a bunch of Slytherins, but I don't think that's proof that they were all a big happy supportive family to him. I mean, they mostly grew up to become Death-Eaters! I'd say they hung around with Snape out of a wary respect and took his side against Gryffindor (naturally), but when it came right down to it were much more about promoting their own agendas than being Snape's bosom buddies. He was greasy, he was prickly, he was obsessed with Getting Back At The Gryffindors, but then, he was also smart and knew all those curses - wouldn't want to get on his bad side. Hmm... here's something for us all to ponder... let's say Draco's suggestion was taken up. Dumbledore is removed, and Snape is offered the position of Headmaster. Would he accept? (I say no, but what do you think?) If so, how would he perform in the role, what would happen and how would Hogwarts change?? Saint Bacchus of Anna: > I disagree with this, because I don't think competence is an inherent Ravenclaw trait. I've known plenty of people who got through school without the brains to fill a thimble just because they studied hard.< I always saw Ravenclaw as the house for intellectuals, which is not the same thing as the House for people who get Good Marks At School. People can get good marks for all sorts of reasons (cheating, studying maniacally, being good at psychoanalysing teachers and how they assess, photographic memory, sheer brilliance which enables them to excel with little effort, etc.). Being intellectual, IMO, has more to do with an interest in knowledge and ideas and learning for their own sake, not necessarily as a means to an end (such as good marks, achieving fame and fortune, etc.). Presumably intellectuals would be more likely to do well at school *on the whole* because they'd be more interested in studying and understanding and discussing the concepts they were learning for their own sake. All the same, you could have the interest but not the ability, or the diligence. Also, remember that from what we've seen, many Hogwarts exams seem to be practical, which might even put Ravenclaws at a disadvantage. Maybe some Ravenclaws argue into the night about Transfiguration theories and neglect the tedious workmanlike practical work they're meant to be doing. I should know. When I was studying Chemistry at university (what a mistake that was), I was fine with exams and theory, but hampered by being absolutely *useless* at pracs. I also used to sit around and endlessly debate and analyse the concepts and research we were studying in 4th year Psychology with the other intellectual-oriented types, which used to drive others mad: we're *out* of class now, can you please talk about something else?? Hmm. You'd think this would make me a Ravenclaw, but the various Sorting Hats I've tried keep on declaring me either Gryffindor or Slytherin (though never, ever, *ever* Hufflepuff. Not a *chance*). Caius: > MOODY >I have been discreet, >But it's Death I Eat, says Mad-Eye Tabouli chuckles appreciatively. 'But it's Death I Eat' indeed... David: > Am I the only person who dislikes the expression 'suck it up'? I'm not keen on it in isolation. All the same, like most things, context is everything. Coming from the Tough, FEATHERBOA-draped fingers of Cindy, the phrase does have a certain Hard ring to it... Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From inviziblegirl at hotmail.com Fri Mar 15 14:26:40 2002 From: inviziblegirl at hotmail.com (Amber ?) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:26:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Percy's House Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36579 >From: "saintbacchus" >Okay, so here's the question: what about Percy? We know >he was in Gryffindor, but wouldn't he have been better >suited to Slytherin or Hufflepuff? He's shown far more >in the way of ambition and blind loyalty than bravery. >Ron even says at one point that Percy would be likely to >turn in his family if it meant advancing his career. It >might have been just a snarky, offhand comment, but >there's a grain of truth to it, ne? The same could be said about Hermione; wouldn't she have been better suited for Ravenclaw? But people usually argue that she's shown plenty of bravery thus far, that she values bravery over book smarts. Of course, Hermione is one of the main characters. She's close to Harry a lot of the time, so we get to see her. Percy is not close to Harry most of the time. Thus, we don't get to see instances where he is brave, although they are there. One that comes to mind is at the World Cup tournament in book four. When the Death Eaters appear, he races off with his brothers to fight them, no questions asked. I think that shows a bit of bravery. Plus, it takes a certain type of bravery to take on a leadership position (prefect, Head Boy) because those in leadership/enforcing positions are at times not liked. When Hogwarts is in trouble (Fat Lady slashed, troll in dungeon), he never shows overt fear. Granted, these are just a few instances, when compared to the Trio or others. But, as I mentioned, we don't get to see Perce a lot of the time. I'd say that it's too early to claim that he doesn't belong in Gryffindor because he isn't brave. I'm beginning to think that the Sorting Hat takes a lot into account when it sorts the students. Percy, like Hermione, seems multi-talented and faceted. He could've gone into several houses. Maybe Percy *values* bravery over everything else (like Hermione does) and that's the reason why he's in Gryffindor. Maybe he wanted to go into Gryffindor because his older brothers were in that house. Regardless of the reason, the Sorting Hat saw it fit to put him in Gryffindor. We've seen hints of bravery. I don't know why people aren't willing to trust that Percy is brave, as we haven't seen anything to the contrary. ~Amber ******** http://www.the-tabula-rasa.com I am moved by fancies that are curled Around these images, and cling: The notion of some infinitely gentle Infinitely suffering thing. - excerpt from "Preludes" by T.S. Eliot _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From mercia at ireland.com Fri Mar 15 14:48:49 2002 From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:48:49 -0000 Subject: DE Name Origin, & some Dark Mark In-Reply-To: <00b601c1cb01$d44545c0$1e7c63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36580 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda" wrote: > My husband tells me that the name > "Death Eater" instantly reminded him of Sin Eaters--the name for an old > Welsh practice, whereby a willing person "took on" the sins of a dying > person, and would go to confession and do the penance for them, to save the > dying person from the consequences of their sin (I'm presuming that this was > done when a priest wasn't handy to do Last Rites, or something; it's been > quite a few months since my husband and I discussed this). Any Welsh people > got anything else on this? Very interesting Amanda. I have a Welsh friend who grew up in Welsh speaking Anglesey and told me monwho in bygone days went through the village eating the sins and evil of people at the point of death but it was not to protect their souls but to acquire a sort of evil immortality, a la Voldy and co indeed. He had wondered if JKR knew of that legend, but when I asked that question on a different list (before I knwo of this one) someone replied from an institute for Celtic Studies in Cardiff (I think) saying they knew nothing about the legend. So thank you for showing that at least one other Welsh person besides my friend has heard of something similar but perhaps my friend is confusing JKR's version with what he might have heard about the sort of ancient practice your husband has described. > > I think it ties the > Death Eaters to Voldemort for life and more; I think it likely that part of > the bond is that if Voldemort dies, they all will, too. > > It seems his style, to demand such a commitment, and it would guarantee > their support of him (you'd think), and it would be a very good reason for > Snape to look pale or Dumbledore to look anxious at the end of book 4--even > when you have known for years what you will do, and come to terms with what > will happen, still, walking out the door to begin steps that will lead, if > successful, to your own death, cannot be a thing one does lightly. This is also a very interesting gloss on the whole thing and as you say would make a lot of sense of Snape's mission. I am among those who think it is too unlikely that he is simply going back to spy when his cover is completely blown IMO. Mercia > > From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com Fri Mar 15 15:03:30 2002 From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:03:30 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Real Wizards Don't Apologize & Fourth Man (WAS Crouch Jr and ) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36581 >From: "cindysphynx" "Now, if Jamie is brave enough to join us, we're going to have to give the kayak to someone else and move up to an inflatable 8-person raft with cupholders and an ice chest filled with cold Mimosas. I seem to have some of those Spam cubes left over from the last party on the Destroyer, too. Jake didn't seem to care for them." I've actually been attempting pitifully to waterski behind the Fourth Man kayak for some time now, but as it's nigh-on impossible with as little velocity as you folks have been providing, I've been fairly well submurged the entire time. I bought into the Fourth Man theory so readily that it seemed foolish to simply post "Aye, that makes sense..." immediately thereafter. I'm not sure about variants. I think I can give Fourth Man with Remorse a bit of a break. Why did he return to LV when the dark mark summoned? Because Avery is Weak! He gave up and went back to the side of the light when LV was 'defeated' back in '81, and now that he's returned, he's back where he was all those years ago. The man is positively wishy-washy! Oh and, can we opt out of the raft and go straight to a hovercraft?? I'll bring the cocktail weenies! J _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From jklb66 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 15 15:05:33 2002 From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:05:33 -0000 Subject: Deathday Question??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36582 Krystyne wrote: >But to say that he knows what happened [his parents died on >Halloween], he sure has a lot of fun on Halloween. I'm not saying he >has to dwell on it, but at least acknowledge it or something. To me, >it seems like it doesn't really matter to him. (I'm sure I'm wrong, >but that's how it looks. At least to me anyway.) I mean my >grandmother died on Halloween too, but I at least stop and say a >rosary or a prayer for her every year before I go out and have fun. >Hmmmm...maybe it's just me. Oh well. But, in Harry's defense, his parents have been dead as long as he can remember. It isn't like he has memories of a wonderful childhood and then, BAM, one Halloween it was all ripped away from him. He hasn't spent his childhood associating his parents' deaths with Halloween. On his eleventh birthday, he was told that his parents were murdered and that it happened on Halloween. (And he was told a lot of cool stuff, too!) He has certainly reflected MANY times on how they died and at whose hands, but when they died isn't as important. I'm of the school of thought that Harry was conceived on Halloween as well. And he certainly isn't going to reflect on that either! "Eww! My parents wouldn't do that, would they!" ;) -Jennifer "He wouldn't have thought what James and Lily were doing was geometrically impossible. 'Sorry, ' he called." from "Cub Scout" by Moon on fanfiction.net From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Mar 15 15:15:38 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:15:38 -0000 Subject: Avery WAS Re: Real Wizards Don't Apologize & Fourth Man (WAS Crouch Jr and ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36583 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > My goodness! What's going on here? Are you guys starting to -- > well, there's just no gentle way to say it -- go *Soft* on me? What > am I hearing? Sympathy for Pettigrew? Doubt about Crouch Jr.'s > guilt? What next ? Tom Riddle was just misunderstood? Tom Riddle wasn't misunderstood... but you have to look at the situation from his point of view if you want to understand how he went so wrong. But, didn't the Fourth Man kayak crew come together after a battle between the Tough like Cindy and the Bleeding Hearts, like myself and Elkins. Didn't we discover in the end that the Tough and the Bleeding Hearts can both revel in things like bloody ambushes? Now, truth be told, if this was the wizarding world, you'd probably be cheering on Crouch Sr., and I'd be misguidedly lobbying for the release of Avery....... JK > No, I don't think I can sign on for the Pity Party that seems to be > forming here. Pettigrew was Evil. Evil, evil and really evil. He > scurried off before he got what he deserved. Yeah, he's evil. So was Grima Wormtongue. But they're both miserable, so I feel sorry for them. > You see, Fourth Man with Remorse is just, well . . . forgive me, > but . . . it's kinda lame. I mean, how can Avery *possibly* have > remorse? He apparated to the graveyard, for heaven's sake. And as I > established above, no one in the wizarding world has any idea what > proper remorse is. Remorse is *not* returning to the side of Evil > the first time you get a Dark Mark hot flash, throwing yourself to > the ground to beg forgiveness for not being Evil enough for the last > decade, tolerating a few seconds of Crucio, and then continuing right > along in your Evil old ways. No, Fourth Man with Remorse needs to be > buried at sea. He is just excess weight slowing down the kayak. No, I stand by Fourth Man with Remorse. Remorse is not incompatible with ending up with Voldemort again. In fact, if you believe us "Remorse" people, that's Avery's defining characteristic. He keeps getting out of it, and then being pulled back in. He probably hates himself, and keeps quavering between continuing his evil ways and turning himself in. And he does seem guilty when he's talking to Voldemort, no? But then, I figure you're not buying into Elkins story that he avoided his former DE friends like the plague for years, sends his children to Beauxbatons etc. > Elkins again: > > > There's even a "Fourth Man With Innocence," in which Avery, although > > he was indeed a Death Eater, was nonetheless utterly innocent of > any > > complicity at all in the Longbottom Affair and was arrested and > > convicted solely on the basis of guilt by association with the > > Lestranges. > > I beg your pardon? Do you mean that Avery is innocent because he > couldn't muster the strength to actually aim his own wand directly at > Frank Longbottom? Elkins' variety had Avery playing bridge at the Lestranges with Crouch Jr. when Moody came in. No-one has taken her up on the kindly offer. I like you're idea of Avery breaking down during the torture scene, actually. Still, he was involved. Guilty as sin. Just with a little remorse. > Elkins again: > > > Avery himself, although he sometimes shares the kayak with us, > > doesn't get to express his own opinion on the matter, because he's > > just an in-jokey parody of somebody else's fictional character, and > > so doesn't count. ;^) > > Uh. No. I specifically recall kicking Avery out of the kayak weeks > ago, and I don't even see bubbles marking the spot where he went > down. He sank like a stone. I think his guilty conscience weighed > him down. If you'll check back, Elkins screamed and dived down into the water, dragged Avery back, hugged him, and wrapped him in blankets, or something like that. And don't you dare touch him again. We actually LIKE him! > Now, if Jamie is brave enough to join us, we're going to have to give > the kayak to someone else and move up to an inflatable 8-person raft > with cupholders and an ice chest filled with cold Mimosas. I seem to > have some of those Spam cubes left over from the last party on the > Destroyer, too. Jake didn't seem to care for them. Bring on the raft! BTW, Cindy, don't you think Fourth Man with Remorse is so much more BIG BANGISH? You're no frills Fourth Man is just a cold fact of logic. Ours has pathos, bathos, and heart-wrenching scenes. > > Cindy (noting that Arthur Weasley apologizes for blasting the > Dursleys' living room to bits, but they're just Muggles so he > probably figured no wizards outside the family would hear about it) LOL! Eileen From sophiamcl at hotmail.com Fri Mar 15 11:24:25 2002 From: sophiamcl at hotmail.com (sophia mclaughlin) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:24:25 Subject: Request for a lost post Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36584 Hello, I'm a recent Potter fan who only joined the discussion group a few days ago. I'd like to ask you a favour. You posted some thoughts on how Harry was a unifying factor in the HP-universe by combining traits of , for instance all the Hogwarts-houses etc. I thought I had saved it, since I considered your thoughts perceptive and interesting. Now I can't find this entry. Do you still have it and would you be able to send straight to my e-mail? I would be much obliged. Sophia _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri Mar 15 15:31:14 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:31:14 -0000 Subject: Thanking Snape? (WAS Where was Snape?) In-Reply-To: <00a001c1cbd0$d3617460$b87c63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36585 Amanda, B.S., wrote: <[Snape's] effort to protect the children is genuine. > Snape tries to save the kids, they knock him out, and not only do >they > never appreciate what he did, they never apologize for their >attack. Little > self-centered brats. I have a feeling I'm going to have my head handed to me here for taking on a certified Snape-ologist, but here goes. Harry should thank Snape for saving him in the Shrieking Shack or owes Snape an apology for knocking Snape out? Let's check the Apology Meter and see who owes whom an apology or a thank you. Snape burst into the Shrieking Shack, having appropriated Harry's invisibility cloak to eavesdrop. Then Snape ties up Lupin, threatens to kill Black, threatens to let the dementors kiss Snape and Lupin, and then threatens Harry. After all of this, Harry disarms Snape. That's it. Harry didn't perform a levitating charm and drop Snape on his greasy head. Harry did not intentionally knock Snape out; that bit was unintentional (albeit convenient). Indeed, it was the Trio who suggested that Snape not be left to rot in the Shrieking Shack. Nope, I'm not getting a reading on the Apology Meter. Harry does not owe Snape an apology or even a thank you. Everything that happened to Snape in the Shrieking Shack was entirely Snape's fault. In fact, the Apology Meter needle has swung around and is pointing directly at Snape. Snape's foolish conduct caused Black to be within moments of having his soul sucked out and contributed to Pettigrew's escape. Bottom line: Snape's beliefs about what was going on may have been deeply held, but they were still deeply wrong. And I'm still not buying the idea that Snape was motivated to rescue the Trio. What's the first thing Snape would say upon entering the Shrieking Shack if he were genuinely interested in the well-being of the Trio? "Are you all right?" Snape would ask. Yet he never asks this question, although Ron is lying on the floor with a broken leg. No, Snape is too busy crowing: "Two more for Azkaban tonight." "Very useful, Potter, I thank you." "Vengeance is very sweet." Snape needs to review the Evil Overlord Handbook, if you ask me. The bottom line is that Snape left his office with one important piece of information -- that Lupin was headed toward the Shrieking Shack. He didn't know about Black or the Trio at that point. The desire to catch Lupin was the sole catalyst for Snape's actions. The presence of the Trio (which Snape did not suspect until he arrived at the Willow or confirm until he arrived at the Shack) did not cause Snape to change his conduct at all, IMHO. So no, I don't think Snape's motives were honorable. He wanted to get Lupin fired, and that is the only reason he ventured out that night. I'll tell you what. If someone should be credited with having genuine concern for the Trio, it should be Lupin. Lupin did know that the Trio was in the company of a convicted murder and a dead man. He raced to the scene knowing that he was cutting the timing on his transformation fine indeed and disarms everyone so he can sort things out. Despite the shocking events unfolding, Lupin does express concern for Ron: "Lupin made toward [Ron], looking concerned . . . " If the Trio should thank anyone, it is Lupin, not Snape. Cindy (not disputing that Harry should have thanked Snape for keeping Harry on his broom) From mercia at ireland.com Fri Mar 15 15:33:01 2002 From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:33:01 -0000 Subject: DE Name Origin, & some Dark Mark In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36586 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" wrote: > > But I've got a different understanding of why Harry's scar first > hurt. I thought that it didn't hurt when he first met Quirrell at > Diagon Alley because Voldemort had not yet possessed Quirrell (he > possessed him after the failed raid on the bank). In the Sorting hat > scene, I thought that Quirrell had turned away from Harry so that the > turban (and therefore Voldemort) could get a good look at Harry. Thus > it was when Voldemort looked at Harry that he experienced pain. It > had nothing to do with the hateful look that Snape was giving him. > Though of course none of this became clear until later. > > Your post made me completely revise an impression I had had that Voldy had been in Quirrell's head from the moment he encountered him in that forest in Albania. I had sort of assumed it anyway in PS and had it reinforced by the graveyard scene in GoF when he talked about the wizard who strayed across his path in Albania and who was a teacher at Dumbledore's school. I also have a vague impression of Quirrell being turbaned in the film's version of the scene in Diagon Alley but I couldn't swear to it and of course the film's interpretations are not canon. But when I reread both passages more carefully I realised that Voldy does say in the GoF scene that he possessed Quirrell at a later point after he had been brought back to the UK and Quirrell's turban is not mentioned in the Diagon Alley scene. However it still puzzles me a little. Why did Voldy need Quirrell to bring him back to the UK? He is in this incorporeal shadowy form at that point and was able to travel to Albania under his own steam (sorry no pun intended) when he was fleeing. He would need control of a wizard mind to do specific magic but why would he need help to travel? And if he was that shadowy anyway why go off to Albania in the first place? Why not just drift around England or Scotland looking for weak willed wizards to manipulate? If he needed to be in hiding because of the danger that would still apply if Quirrell brought him back to Britain outside of his (Quirrell's) body. How do you transport an insubstantial shadow anyway if it is not possessing your body? I think that was probably why I just assumed Quirrell was possessed by Voldy from the first? On a slightly different tack, isn't all this changing of DADA teachers just a bit suspicious. Dumbledore seems to be showing a lamentable lack of judgement and doesn't seem too bothered about it by the tone of his remark to Harry in PoA when he goes off to draft yet another advert for the post for the Daily Prophet. IIRC he says something like, 'We do seem to be going through them lately' with that characteristeric twinkle. I know it is plot driven and have no doubt there will be a different DADA teacher for each of the seven years but if I were on the Board of Governors I would be seriously concerned about the competence of the Headmaster if such an important post kept being filled with useless teachers. Especially in these times of looming crisis and a renewed war with the Dark Side. Quirrell seems to have always been too weak to be effective and Lockhart was totally hopeless. Lupin was good but 'fatally flawed' and while the real Moody might have been a good thought (and even perhaps a good teacher) we all know what went wrong there and Dubledore seems to have been deceived for most of the school year. I don't think I am actually citing it as further evidence for 'Dumbledore is ever so evil' but it is alarming that the position is so hard to fill with anybody who is any good at the job. By the way, my thanks to Eloise for explaining 'Flying Hedgehogs' and for enrolling me in the said Order and I think on the whole it is the right place for me. But I did find Porphyia's (I think) explanation a while back of some of Dumbledore's actions pretty convincing. I think she was suggesting a Dumbledore acting out of a certain ruthlessness for the cause (with Edge if you like, as I myself suggested some time ago) but not out of evil intent. Apologies if I have misremembered. With so many interesting strands flying through every day and so little time it is hard to keep up let alone respond when it seems appropriate. But I sort of remember thinking that was a good way of holding on to belief in a good Dumbldore while still wondering a bit about some of his actions. Hope that doesn't affect my membership of the Order of the Flying Hedgehog. I'm still paranoid about virtually everyone and everything in the books. I've never suspected McGonagall though. Mercia From jklb66 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 15 15:34:24 2002 From: jklb66 at yahoo.com (jklb66) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:34:24 -0000 Subject: Wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36587 In PS/SS, Ron says that he has "Charlie's old wand." We then get to "see" it. "He rummaged around in his trunk and pulled out a very battered-looking wand. It was chipped in places and something white was glinting at the end. 'Unicorn hair's nearly poking out.'" If I were Charlie, going off to Romania to work with dragons, I'd want a wand that was a little less battle-scared. No one wants to face a draon with a wand that could lose its unicorn hair any minute. Undoubtedly Charlie got himself a new wand at Ollivander's before starting his new job (or soon after his first paycheck). But for a beginner who just has to learn how to levitate feathers and turn beetles into buttons, I'm sure the old wand would be just fine. So, that's why, IMO, Charlie got a new wand and why the old one was available to be a hand-me-down for Ron. Hmm... could be a good starting point for a fanfiction...how did Charlie's wand come to be in such bad shape? I'd bet he had some interesting adventures in the Forbidden Forest with Hagrid. -Jennifer "'I've got them counted, Hagrid,' said Charlie sternly." From mercia at ireland.com Fri Mar 15 15:38:03 2002 From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:38:03 -0000 Subject: DE Name Origin, & some Dark Mark In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36588 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "meglet2" wrote: > Sorry I accidently deleted a bit of a sentence in my previous reply. My comment about my friend should read, 'a friend who told me month ago about a Welsh legend of people who ....' Sorry if the previous one didn't make sense at that point. Hope this clarifies it. Mercia From bonnie at niche-associates.com Fri Mar 15 15:49:34 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:49:34 -0000 Subject: All things green tally Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36589 Before this whole site goes under, I'm posting the latest tally as of March 15th, 8:50am -0700: 34 Gryffindor 29 Ravenclaw 10 Hufflepuff 5 Slytherin The odd numbers from Gryff and Raven come from two repeated posts, for which I had to dock points. (GoF 298 and PoA 32 were used twice.) Notably missing from this competition is participation from certain Mods, Elves, and Geists, who are certainly welcome to add their 5 knut's worth. Well? See post 36388 for the original assignment. --Dicentra From john at walton.vu Fri Mar 15 15:56:00 2002 From: john at walton.vu (John Walton) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:56:00 +0000 Subject: FILK: We Will Survive Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36590 To the tune of Gloria Gaynor's timeless "I Will Survive"... [Enter troupe of dancing blue car in hairnet, former "Miss Use of Muggle Artifacts" winner, rock, goat, small children dressed as owls, chess pieces, dancing yarmulkes, strangely-dressed elves and women of varying leg length and bosom size. A piano starts playing] First we were a Club, then we Group-i-fied JK Rowling's our obsession very deep inside Many days and many nights Typing tiredly at the keys But now Yahoo's got an outage and withdrawal's hitting me... [Lights start flashing different colors and the tempo speeds up. The rock dances and the dancing yarmulkes start doing a hora in time to the music.] But we'll be back! In cyberspace! We'll get our HPFGU again on Monday (maybe late) Back to LOLLIPOPS and FLIRTIACS and even DRIFTYs too We'll be back on OT-Chatter and main HPFGU. Yahoo must go! What service poor! Can't get no email or read webview any more Though 'cause of Yahoo for three days we'll say goodbye We're back on Monday! But we'll not be here on the Ides, We're Petrified! We will survive! We'll go off to FictionAlley, where fanfiction is alive, Though no HPFGU, We'll be there to chat with you We'll survive, we will survive! Hey he-eh-ey... [Miss Use of Muggle Artifacts begins to make worrying gesticulations at the dancing car, while the goat makes suggestive eyes at one of the chess pieces...] [Fade to black] See you on Monday, folks! --John, for the HPFGU Moderators, Elves and Poltergeists From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com Fri Mar 15 16:03:08 2002 From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:03:08 +0000 Subject: Wands, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Female Death Eaters and Ron Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36591 Jedi wrote: > > I have a question too: Why exactly does Ron have Charlie's old wand? > > I know he has a lot of hand me downs, but wouldn't Charlie need his > > wand? >From: Susanne >Maybe they "outgrow" their wands? I've always held with the belief that Charlie, a very out-doorsey type and interested in "Interestin' creatures" as he was, abused his wand severely by the time he graduated. It was still functional, but far from pretty. So he went to Ollivanders for a replacement with the advance money he got from his grant to study dragons in Romania. As such, he gave his old wand to his parents for Ron to use, so that they could put off buying him a new one for a few years and save a few galleons that way. Incidentally, shouldn't we have seen Ron get better at most of his studies at the beginning of third year? He did get a new wand, after all, and one that's attuned to him instead of just a hand-me-down. So he's no longer operating under a handicap, and should be that much better at spells he already learned to do. J _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri Mar 15 16:10:37 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:10:37 -0000 Subject: All things green tally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36592 Dicentra urged: > Notably missing from this competition is participation from certain > Mods, Elves, and Geists, who are certainly welcome to add their 5 > knut's worth. ::scratches self:: Uh, you want me to actually *get up* and walk across the room and *open* a book? No, I don't think so. True fans don't have to open a book, but instead can quote PoA from memory. Watch and learn: "He was carrying a green goblet, which was smoking faintly, and stopped at the sight of Harry, his black eyes narrowing." "The tiniest green speech bubble had appeared next to his figure. The word inside said, 'Dissendium.'" "His eyes moved from the green registration number at the top of the handle, right down to the perfectly smooth, streamlined birch twigs that made up the tail." "Another sweater from Mum . . . green again . . . see if you've got one." "The dementor glided forward, drawing its breath; one rotting green hand was extending toward Harry." Hope this helps. Cindy (who uses the Greenland translation) From Edblanning at aol.com Fri Mar 15 16:54:52 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:54:52 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Thanking Snape? (WAS Where was Snape?) Message-ID: <3a.2391504c.29c3815c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36593 Cindy: > > Snape tries to save the kids, they knock him out, and not only do > >they > > never appreciate what he did, they never apologize for their > >attack. Little > > self-centered brats. > > I have a feeling I'm going to have my head handed to me here for > taking on a certified Snape-ologist, but here goes. Harry should > thank Snape for saving him in the Shrieking Shack or owes Snape an > apology for knocking Snape out? He didn't need saving, but ideally the trio *should* apologise for knocking him out IMHO. It's one of the things that I'm constantly battling to get my kids to understand. 'But I didn't *mean* to'.....No, but civilised people apologise for injury caused by accident. If they don't, it implies that they don't care what effect their actions have on others and morally, it might just as well have been intentional. No matter that Snape wouldn't apologise to them in similar circumstances; one person's bad manners don't justify another's, in my book. > Let's check the Apology Meter and see who owes whom an apology or a > thank you. Snape burst into the Shrieking Shack, having appropriated > Harry's invisibility cloak to eavesdrop. Then Snape ties up Lupin, > threatens to kill Black, threatens to let the dementors kiss Snape > and Lupin, and then threatens Harry. An apology meter? That's what I mean. I don't think you can weigh the wrongs done by each side and imply that only one side is therefore owed an apology. > After all of this, Harry disarms Snape. That's it. Harry didn't > perform a levitating charm and drop Snape on his greasy head. Harry > did not intentionally knock Snape out; that bit was unintentional > (albeit convenient). Indeed, it was the Trio who suggested that > Snape not be left to rot in the Shrieking Shack. Agreed > Nope, I'm not getting a reading on the Apology Meter. Harry does not owe > Snape an > apology or even a thank you. Everything that happened to Snape in > Eloise It *was* his fault, yes, but I stand by what I said above. A civilised response (some hope!) would be for Snape to acknowledge that. and.. erm.. apologise to Sirius...and Lupin. But that, as Harry thinks, is asking for a near miracle (which is not an excuse). I really hope Snape and Sirius do make up some time - not completely, you understand - a sort of friendship with edge. > In fact, the Apology Meter needle has swung around and is pointing > directly at Snape. Snape's foolish conduct caused Black to be within > moments of having his soul sucked out and contributed to Pettigrew's > escape. Bottom line: Snape's beliefs about what was going on may > have been deeply held, but they were still deeply wrong. Eloise Yes, he needs to take on board what he's done and apologise too. I don't think his motivation was *bad*, just severely misguided. ( *But* we apologise for mistakes) > And I'm still not buying the idea that Snape was motivated to rescue > the Trio. What's the first thing Snape would say upon entering the > Shrieking Shack if he were genuinely interested in the well-being of > the Trio? "Are you all right?" Snape would ask. Yet he never asks > this question, although Ron is lying on the floor with a broken leg. > No, Snape is too busy crowing: "Two more for Azkaban > tonight." "Very useful, Potter, I thank you." "Vengeance is very > sweet." Snape needs to review the Evil Overlord Handbook, if you ask > me. Eloise But he did say 'thank you' ! :-) Well, he knew what the situation was, because he'd been listening, hadn't he? And when it came down to it, he conjured them stretchers and got them back to the castle. No, his primary motive wasn't to rescue the trio: he didn't know they were there - at least until he found the invisibility cloak. So 'are you OK?' wasn't the first thing on his mind. Come on, can you *ever* imagine Snape asking that? Well, I can, if I think about it, but not in the circumstances. You know what it's like when you find a child in danger because they've done something stupid. As a mother, your first reaction (in my experience) is either to burst into tears with relief (not a very Snape-like reaction) or tell them off soundly for being stupid and worrying you and all that. On the other hand, securing the situation was a priority, because he 'knew' what was going on. I'm sure he *thought* he was rescuing them. > The bottom line is that Snape left his office with one important > piece of information -- that Lupin was headed toward the Shrieking > Shack. He didn't know about Black or the Trio at that point. The > desire to catch Lupin was the sole catalyst for Snape's actions. The > presence of the Trio (which Snape did not suspect until he arrived at > the Willow or confirm until he arrived at the Shack) did not cause > Snape to change his conduct at all, IMHO. So no, I don't think > Snape's motives were honorable. He wanted to get Lupin fired, and > that is the only reason he ventured out that night. Eloise Unfortunately true! > I'll tell you what. If someone should be credited with having > genuine concern for the Trio, it should be Lupin. Lupin did know > that the Trio was in the company of a convicted murder and a dead > man. He raced to the scene knowing that he was cutting the timing on > his transformation fine indeed brilliant Bewitching Hour Theory> and disarms everyone so he can sort > things out. Despite the shocking events unfolding, Lupin does > express concern for Ron: "Lupin made toward [Ron], looking > concerned . . . " If the Trio should thank anyone, it is Lupin, not > Snape. Eloise Definitely. Good egg, that Lupin. > Cindy (not disputing that Harry should have thanked Snape for keeping > Harry on his broom) > > Eloise At least we can agree on that! Marina (on another of my posts) > A send-up of stereotypcial flamboyant gay behavior. It seems to be > accepted wisdom in the popular US media that gay men are fascinated by > interior decorating and say "marvelous" a lot. So when you compared > Snape to a flamboyant interior designer, the image popped up. Snape > is certainly flamboyant, and since I refuse to 'ship him I'm in no > position to make statements about which way he swings, but I refuse to > believe that the word "marvelous" would ever pass his greasy lips. > Eloise Should have stuck this in with my last post. Just for the record, not that it should matter, I should point out that the interior designer I mentioned does have a wife and daughter. He's 'camp' in a theatrical way, but not as far as I'm aware, in any other. I was in no way implying anything about Snape's sexuality! Thanks for elucidating the pink flamingo. If I can ever bring myself to despatch it, I'll send you a featherboa for George. I don't think it would do much for the decor. I'm resisting Lollipops as far as I can, though I don't know how long I can keep up the fight. I'll certainly volunteer to scrub the graffiti off the Flirtiac Dinghy! That's just too much. (But don't tell Elkins, or she might not let me on that kayak, or inflatable or whatever it is Cindy keeps trying to drown that Avery chap from. Do you think its safe on there?) Eloise...wondering what you do with a plastic flamingo. Do you stick them in garden ponds, the way people here have model herons, to deter the real thing from eating your fish? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From j-lipton at nwu.edu Fri Mar 15 17:33:00 2002 From: j-lipton at nwu.edu (Jamie Lipton) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 11:33:00 -0600 Subject: Animagus specifics Message-ID: <02ef01c1cc47$744c8240$03fea8c0@death-computer> No: HPFGUIDX 36594 I offer you this paradox to consider: Peter Pettigrew cut off his finger as a human and as a result, his animagus form lost a toe from the corresponding paw. Since Peter's self-amputation was reflected in his animagus form, I can only conclude that if he were to suffer an injury in his animagus form, it would be reflected in his human form. So I pose this question: What if Sirius had actually managed to attack Wormtail that night in Gryffindor tower, and succeeded in cutting off his tail? How would the loss of the tail impact Peter's human form? Chew on that! :-) - Jamie From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri Mar 15 17:36:42 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:36:42 -0000 Subject: Thanking Snape? (WAS Where was Snape?) In-Reply-To: <3a.2391504c.29c3815c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36595 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > He didn't need saving, but ideally the trio *should* apologise for knocking > him out IMHO. It's one of the things that I'm constantly battling to get my > kids to understand. 'But I didn't *mean* to'.....No, but civilised people > apologise for injury caused by accident. If they don't, it implies that they > don't care what effect their actions have on others and morally, it might > just as well have been intentional. No matter that Snape wouldn't apologise > to them in similar circumstances; one person's bad manners don't justify > another's, in my book. See, I have a different view of apologies, possibly influenced by the fact that I don't have children. I don't like them. (Apologies, I mean. Well, okay, and children, too.) I tend to just get more annoyed when someone apologizes to me, because I'm convinced that they're sincerely sorry for what they've done (as opposed to being sincerely sorry for getting caught), and because in my experience people have a tendency to translate "apology accepted" as "so now you can do it again." If someone has wronged me, I'd prefer they keep my mouth shut about it and refrain from wronging me ever again. This is probably very cynical and anti-social of me, but what other character do we know who's cynical and anti-social, hmmm? I suspect that it will be chilly day in hell before Snape apologizes to anyone, and I doubt he would react favorably to an apology from Harry, or from Sirius, or from anyone else he thinks has wronged him. > Marina (on another of my posts) > > > A send-up of stereotypcial flamboyant gay behavior. It seems to be > > accepted wisdom in the popular US media that gay men are fascinated by > > interior decorating and say "marvelous" a lot. So when you compared > > Snape to a flamboyant interior designer, the image popped up. Snape > > is certainly flamboyant, and since I refuse to 'ship him I'm in no > > position to make statements about which way he swings, but I refuse to > > believe that the word "marvelous" would ever pass his greasy lips. > > > > Eloise > > Should have stuck this in with my last post. Just for the record, not that it > should matter, I should point out that the interior designer I mentioned does > have a wife and daughter. He's 'camp' in a theatrical way, but not as far as > I'm aware, in any other. I was in no way implying anything about Snape's > sexuality! Oh, I know. It was my own twisted thought processes that led to the image, not anything you said. > Eloise...wondering what you do with a plastic flamingo. Do you stick them in > garden ponds, the way people here have model herons, to deter the real thing > from eating your fish? Well, you certainly could stick it in a garden pond, but I believe the conventional thing to do is to stick them on your lush, emerald-green lawn in front of your huge, pastel-colored house which, ideally, is located in a sunny coastal state like Florida, so that there can be some palm trees growing on the lawn. Its presence is supposed to be indicative of supreme tackiness and poor taste. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From porphyria at mindspring.com Fri Mar 15 21:47:58 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:47:58 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Scar musings/SUCCESS/D's Edge/Snape's motivation In-Reply-To: <2f.23ef2e20.29c33909@aol.com> Message-ID: <50E184D7-385E-11D6-909D-000393465128@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36596 In a previous message I wrote: > Personally, I > > think the fact that Snape *was* looking right at Harry when his scar > burned > > that night was what tipped off Snape that Quirrell was suspicious. > Quirrell > > stated in no uncertain terms that Snape suspected him before the > > Halloween/Troll incident. Eloise replied: > Can I just clarify the first paragraph? From what I remember of your > original post, Snape was putting two and two together? (as only he can, > as > canon would put it) because he felt his Dark Mark at the same time as he > observed Harry's reaction to the pain in his scar? If that's not what > you > meant, it certainly how I now read it, thanks to your inspiration. I had originally tried to make a distinction between what we know to be more or less canonical fact and what was merely a damned good idea. We do know Snape was looking at Harry when H. theatrically shrieked and clapped his hand to his forehead; unfortunately, we have no evidence that Snape's scar was tingling as well. But I did suggest it was possible, and why not! Glad it was inspiring! If Snape's scar does act as an indicator of Voldemort infestation it provides a lot of future plot potential, which is what I was hoping for. (I was also originally arguing that it might also explain a lot of Snape's concern, worry and suspicion regarding Harry.) I still like the idea that Dumbledore might be able to triangulate Voldemort's position based on the conditions of Harry's and Snape's scars. As in "OK, Snape, you floo to London and report back to me by the head-in-the-fireplace method. Great. OK, now, on a scale of 1 to 10, how would you describe the level of tingliness in your scar? Right. Harry, yours? Right." Then transcribing down positions and figures into a magical GPS chart, jimmying a magically-modified-Astrolabe and shouting in triumph "Aha! LV is currently down in the kitchens, relieving the House Elves of our overstock of Jam Tarts!" Well, OK, something like that. > And of course, *that*s why the Dark Mark acts as an identifier. It > doesn't > matter how visible it is. I 've always had problems with this identifier > concept anyway: you're not exactly going to show anyone the Dark Mark, > unless > you're certain that the person you're showing it to is on your side > already, > are you? Good point. Doesn't it always crack you up when Fudge says regarding Harry, "You'll forgive me, Dumbledore, but I've never heard of a curse scar acting as an alarm bell before...." Ha! Isn't that the whole point! Further evidence that either Fudge is far too stupid to be a Ravenclaw (thank you very much) or, as we rightly suspect, Ever So Evil. > But there must be situations where, given the secretive nature of > the organisation, DEs might not recognise each other. Lots of potential > for > friendly fire incidents, and all that. So DEs *feel* their own Mark > burning > or tingling or something when they're in the presence of another DE so > that > they know they're in safe company. This is a really good thought. Especially since the DE's were cloaked, hooded and *masked* at the time of their late-night frolics. If you needed a spy or an infiltrator, they'd need to have a genuine Dark Mark in order to pass. If the Mark didn't tingle then there'd be a lot of potential for a Good Guy to club a DE over the head and change into his clothes, just as you've seen in every action/adventure movie that ever was. Boy, I hope JKR is thinking this through as well as we are. ;-) > Perhaps that's why Snape suddnly clutches > at his arm during the pyjama party: it's not just guilt, or whatever > emotion > you want to ascribe to him at that point; Moody's presence and > particularly > his thoughts about Snape as DE are actually affecting the Mark. Hmmm. I really like the idea of Snape's having properly hysterical pain there, especially since he acts ashamed of reacting to the pain, as if it shows up a weakness. Maybe the pain was real (real in the sense of physiological, not psychosomatic), but Snape misinterpreted it as emotional, and thus missed the tip-off that "Moody" was in fact evil. That reminds me. Has anyone speculated on the effect of Polyjuice on the Dark Mark? If Snape took on someone else's appearance this way, would the still mark show or burn on his arm? Likewise, if someone Polyjuiced themselves into a DE would they sport the Mark too? Given the dramatic way that Crouch Jr's body transformed and needed Moody's prostetic eye and leg, it strikes me as a deeply physical transformation, so you wonder how much it affects. > Now, I wonder whether that set alarm bells ringing? I wonder if he told > Dumbledore? Whether it helped Dumbledore eventually make the connection? Unfortunately I don't see any evidence of this. You'd think that Dumbledore would have been a little more protective of Harry before the very end if he had reason to think that "Moody" was really a DE. However, it would have been amusing if Snape did tell Dumbledore that Moody was suspicious and Dumbledore disregarded it as Snape's usual paranoia. However, I doubt it. I think Snape really was mentally derailed by Crouch Jr. Porphyria: > >I do agree with the others who have remarked that it seemed like > Dumbledore > >allowed Harry to encounter Quirrell as some sort of practice. If that > was his > >plan, then I have no idea how he managed to keep Snape from interfering > (since > >Snape doesn't share Dumbledore's fondness for letting Harry endanger > himself). > >But maybe he did somehow, maybe he told him to back off??? Eloise: > The problem I addressed with my SUCCESS theory. Yes, but your SUCCESS theory postulates that it was Quirrell who disabled Snape, and this after he already knows he's up to no good. The thought of Q. getting the best of Snape when Snape has every reason to suspect him just breaks my heart. So perhaps it was...Dumbledore who slipped a slow-acting tranquilizer into Snape's pumpkin juice before he left for London. At least we can forgive Snape for trusting Dumbledore to serve him a drink. :-) I think we can even use your same acronym. Oh, on the subject of Dumbldore's Edge, Mercia wrote: > But I did find Porphyia's (I think) explanation a > while back of some of Dumbledore's actions pretty convincing. I think > she was suggesting a Dumbledore acting out of a certain ruthlessness > for the cause (with Edge if you like, as I myself suggested some time > ago) but not out of evil intent. Apologies if I have misremembered. Tragically, no! It wasn't me! But I do find this line of argument fascinating and will myself soon root out and reread those posts. When I find their real author, I will let you know, unless they identify themselves first. :-) In the mean time, while I appreciate having my handle associated with great posts, I'm feeling a little paranoid now imagining the real interpreter of Dumbledore, not quite knowing my real appearance, sticking pins into a voodoo doll with long blond braids... OK, since this post is already all over the place, and I was already engaging Eloise in conversation on the subject of Snape, I'm going to borrow from yet another post: Cindy wrote, regarding Snape in the Shrieking Shack: > The bottom line is that Snape left his office with one important > piece of information -- that Lupin was headed toward the Shrieking > Shack.? He didn't know about Black or the Trio at that point.? The > desire to catch Lupin was the sole catalyst for Snape's actions.? The > presence of the Trio (which Snape did not suspect until he arrived at > the Willow or confirm until he arrived at the Shack) did not cause > Snape to change his conduct at all, IMHO.? So no, I don't think > Snape's motives were honorable.? He wanted to get Lupin fired, and > that is the only reason he ventured out that night. And Eloise replied: > Unfortunately true! Eloise! How could you give up so easily! And when you were doing such a good job of defending him! Amanda has already pointed out that grown-ups have complicated reasons for what they do, but let me clarify what was going on here. Snape did indeed go to the shack knowing only that Lupin was headed there, but his desire to nail Lupin was *inseparable* from the fact that he was already convinced Lupin was helping Black into the castle. Snape states this clearly in the Shack. Remember Black? The guy who was universally believed to have betrayed the Potters? The guy who's trying to murder Harry? Him? I think Snape was far more traumatized by the death of the Potters than he's willing to admit (erm, for whatever reason, not nec. one involving sticky sweet things) and he's still livid that James trusted his friends and got himself killed. (I have a whole theory on this, but I'll save it for another post.) Moreover, Snape is, present-tense in PoA, emotionally involved in trying to protect Harry from Black. Hence his anger when he catches Harry coming back from Hogsmeade, a situation which didn't initially have to do with Lupin. Putting the Shack incident alongside Snape's concern for Harry here (as well as in PS/SS) it's clear to me at least that Snape's hatred for Sirius and suspicion of Lupin are entirely bound up in his grief over what happened to the Potters, his concern for Harry, and his own adolescent experience with them. It's a very complicated set of motives and it's not fair to say he had one and only one reason to go after Lupin. It would be completely out of character for Snape to get all misty over the condition of the Trio when he found them in the Shack. He eavesdropped long enough to notice that H&H were completely unharmed (albeit possibly confounded), and yes Ron was injured, but you know something? Snape couldn't do anything about Ron's injury until he dispatched Lupin and Sirius, which he was knocked out in the process of doing. And what was the *very* first thing that Snape did when he finally woke up again? He got Ron onto a stretcher, first, before anyone else. So I'd say he did notice and care that Ron was injured, it was just a while before he could do anything about it. Finally, one last matter of crucial importance: > Eloise...wondering what you do with a plastic flamingo. One puts it on the front lawn of one's mobile home (or should I say caravan?). Marina's estimation, that they have to do with Floridean glamour, is actually quite generous. Plastic flamingos usually allude to a tropical luxe miserably lacking in the yards they decorate. ~~Porphyria [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mdemeran at hotmail.com Fri Mar 15 19:13:11 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (Meg Demeranville) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:13:11 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Animagus specifics Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36597 Jamie said : (snip) What if Sirius had actually managed to attack Wormtail that night in Gryffindor tower, and succeeded in cutting off his tail? How would the loss of the tail impact Peter's human form? (snip) Sorry I am a med student working for a medical malpractice lawfirm, so I am working off my embryology classes. Humans do possess a tail during development. It is gradually reabsorbed by the body and what is left of the tail forms the adult coccyx (tail bone). My best guess would be that Wormtail would be missing his tail bone and possibly the corresponding sections of nerves. It would make for one heck of a flesh wound, probably most similar to a serious bedsore. I don't think he would be sitting down comfortably for quite some time. Just my thoughts. Feel free to shoot me down. Meg _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri Mar 15 19:23:25 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:23:25 -0000 Subject: Polyjuice and the Dark Mark In-Reply-To: <50E184D7-385E-11D6-909D-000393465128@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36598 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Porphyria wrote: > > That reminds me. Has anyone speculated on the effect of Polyjuice on the > Dark Mark? If Snape took on someone else's appearance this way, would > the still mark show or burn on his arm? Likewise, if someone Polyjuiced > themselves into a DE would they sport the Mark too? Given the dramatic > way that Crouch Jr's body transformed and needed Moody's prostetic eye > and leg, it strikes me as a deeply physical transformation, so you > wonder how much it affects. Given the Mark's properties (the burning, the connection to Voldemort and the other DE's, etc), I would guess that it exists at more than just a physical level. It's actually a spiritual mark with a physical manifestation. So I think it would still be there even if the bearer polyjuiced, transformed into an animal, or changed his appearance by any other means. > Finally, one last matter of crucial importance: > > > Eloise...wondering what you do with a plastic flamingo. > > One puts it on the front lawn of one's mobile home (or should I say > caravan?). Marina's estimation, that they have to do with Floridean > glamour, is actually quite generous. Plastic flamingos usually allude to > a tropical luxe miserably lacking in the yards they decorate. I wish I could claim generosity, but it's probably just that I've never been to a trailer park, but I've been to Florida. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From trog at wincom.net Fri Mar 15 18:02:10 2002 From: trog at wincom.net (talondg) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 18:02:10 -0000 Subject: Death Eater Modus Operendi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36599 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "talondg" wrote: > > Some thoughts on how the Death Eaters operated back when Voldy was > > at his height. > > > > 2) There aren't all that many of them; a couple dozen at the most. > > This means that, when compared to the size of the greater > > wizarding community, they are greatly outnumbered. > Huh? Where does the "couple of dozen" come from? >From the end of GoF, when Voldy summons the DEs to him to witness the (attempted) killing of Harry. I'm at a disadvantage here, as (unlike the other 3 books) I "read" GoF on audio tape, and so I cannot easily re-reference the appropriate passages. But the impression I got was that the DEs formed a single-ranked circle around Voldy - a circle with notable gaps in it, due to DEs being captured/killed/afraid to show up. That suggests a couple of dozen people at most, certainly fewer than 100, and probably more on the order of a quarter of that. > and that one of the reasons they are scary is that they can blend > into "normal" wizard society. In GoF "Padfoot Returns" Sirius talks > about how things were during V's first rampage - you don't know who > the DEs are. All you know is that every day there are more stories > about who has died, been tortured, disappeared, etc. Agreed. Anybody could be a DE. In fact, even if you're a DE, you don't necessarily know who else is a DE - act disloyal to Voldy (as a DE) and maybe your next door neighbour (who unbeknowst to you is also a DE) will rat you out. So yeah, everybody is afraid of the DEs - even themselves. From Voldy's POV, that's a very good thing "Let them hate, so long as they fear!" > I get the feeling that this is caused by more than 24 or 36 > people... But it doesn't require large numbers to spread terror. Consider the most blatent, recent example. 6000 people dead, the ecomomy crippled, the airline industry up against the ropes, tourism savaged, people everywhere afraid to fly. 16 (is that number right?) people involved. And of those people, there is strong evidence that, of the operatives on the planes, only 2 per plane *actually knew* what the mission really was (the others just thought it was a typical hijacking w/ransom, and they were there as "muscle") So that's 6 people, plus maybe a couple more involved in planning and training. Call it 10. Doesn't take much manpower, does it? > > 4) Most of the targets of the DEs (aside from the occasional > > Random Act of Terror and Muggle Killing) are those who most openly > > oppose the DEs and Voldy. These wizards are more likely to be > > stronger and better defended than Joe Average, making them tougher > > targets. > Hmm, not sure about this. It would seem that if this were the case, > the good guys would be able to come up with a defense that would > give a higher degree of protection to those who most openly oppose > Voldy. Ah, but you see, that's just the point. If your objective is to spread terror, then you want to drive home the point that NOBODY is safe - that you can reach out and touch ANYBODY, no matter how well protected. The better protected they are, the bigger the effect of striking that target down. Imagine, for a second, the consequences if the DEs were able to pop into Hogwarts and kill Dumbledore in his office and escape unscathed.... > Did Lily and James make a big deal of their opposition to V, and > thus become greater targets, or was there something else afoot, > which made them a target regardless of their opposition to the dark > side? That, we don't know. But they certainly went through a lot of trouble to set up better than average defences, via the Secret Keeper. Their failing was placing too much trust in the security of the Secret Keeper. They got complacent, and so (it seems) got caught unprepared. Constant Vigilance! ;) > > 5) Aurors in particular seem very tough. They are not bound by the > > restrictions on the Forbidden Curses as are the general public, > > and they are highly trained in magical fighting. An Auror is > > probably worth several DEs in a fight - tangling with an Auror is > > something to be avoided at all costs. > They were given permission to use the Unforgivable Curses, but does > that automatically more powerful than the average DE? Absolutely. There are three major differences between an Auror and a DE 1) An Auror is a legitmate "fighting wizard", so they can be openly trained in combat techniques, and more importantly, PRACTICE on a constant basis. A DE, however, has this other, public life to carry on, and simply cannot get the amount of fighting practice (it must be carried out in secret, in their spare time) than an Auror can. 2) Part of an Auror's training would be teamwork; working in concert with other Aurors. If the Aurors were at all smart, they would work in pairs or groups at all times, and would practice doing so. DEs don't hang out with each other except when summoned by Voldy, so they don't get this practice time. When it's time to fight, they are a group of individuals, not a concerted unit. 3) Aurors would be selected for natural aptitude in fighting skills, logical thought processes, and other skills necessary to their job. DEs, on the other hand, are selected for "evil personalities" and a willingness to serve the Dark Lord. It can be assumed that all Aurors are competant fighters, but not all DEs will be - some will be better than others, but their quality will be all over the map. I can provide a real-life example, if you like. > Think about the 20 hit wizards who showed > up to bring Sirius Black into custody. Did they really need all > these people unless they believed that Sirius had some way powerful > Dark Magic? Wasn't Sirius an Auror? And in any case, "he wins who gets there first with the most men" - it never hurts to err on the side of caution. Bringing more force to the party rarely hurts your cause. ;) > > From this, we can conclude that the MO of the Death Eaters is > > likely to be similar to that of all guerillas/terrorist cells - > > lie low, congregate quickly on a summons, strike en masse, and > > then get the hell out of Dodge before the calvary shows up. > I think that Voldy/DEs can pick a target and strike without a huge > amount of DE activity. I don't think that hordes of DEs showed up > to torture the Longbottoms - several would have probably done the > trick. What if there are only "several" DEs to begin with? There may not *be* a horde to summon. :) And we've seen no evidence that Voldy's Summoning Tattoo of Fire is at all selective. > > 2) He sommons the DEs, who apperate in next to him. (And it would > > be consistant with Voldy's personality that this summons would > > happen without any prior warning, and that the speed at which a > > given DE responded would be a measure of loyalty) > Yes, but he can't be that stupid as to assume that speed alone is a > measure of good Death Eater-ness. Sure he can. He's LORD VOLDEMORT, the DARK LORD! His needs and desires are FAR more important than the needs and desires of any underling. He calls, you COME, **NOW** - your paltry excuses mean nothing to me, mortal! Think about it - if any DE can blow off a Summons for any reason, then there's no way to ensure any of them will ever answer at all.... "Sorry I didn't answer the Summons My Lord, but the season finale of "the West Wing" was on, and my TiVo was on the fritz...." DG From marlysam at yahoo.com Fri Mar 15 20:28:50 2002 From: marlysam at yahoo.com (marlysam) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 20:28:50 -0000 Subject: All things green tally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36600 -Dicentra wrote: > Before this whole site goes under, I'm posting the latest tally as > of March 15th, 8:50am -0700: > > 34 Gryffindor > 29 Ravenclaw > 10 Hufflepuff > 5 Slytherin My five, all from Goblet of Fire, US edition. Any points to Hufflepuff. 1) There was a silvery-blue one with long, pointed horns...; a smooth- scaled green one, which was writhing and stamping with all its might;... (p. 326) 2) She was wearing acid-green robes today; the Quick-Quotes Quill in her hand blended perfectly against them. (p. 362) 3) Dobby let go and stepped back a few paces, beaming up at Harry, his enormous, green, tennis-ball-shaped eyes brimming with tears of happiness. (p. 375) 4) Mrs. Weasley's usual package, including a new sweater (green, with a picture of a dragon on it - Harry supposed Charlie had told her all about the Horntail)... (p. 410) 5) Cornelius Fudge was standing beside Dumbledore's desk, wearing his usual pinstriped cloak and holding his lime-green bowler hat. (p. 581) And, as long as I'm checking in, permission to board the FLIRTIAC dinghy and the Fourth Man (with Remorse) Raft. -Marlys From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri Mar 15 21:25:13 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 21:25:13 -0000 Subject: Sirius as Auror? (WAS Death Eater Modus Operendi) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36601 DG wrote: > Wasn't Sirius an Auror? In canon, we don't know what Sirius did for a living before he took up residence in Azkaban. Personally, I'd be rather surprised if Sirius had been an Auror. In GoF, he didn't understand the significance of the Dark Mark. Moody clearly seems to understand the significance of the Dark Mark on Snape's arm. (Of course, this could have been Fake Moody's knowedge, but I doubt it). Once Snape turned spy for Dumbledore, you'd imagine that anyone even remotely involved in fighting Dark Wizards would know about the Dark Mark. Besides, the way Sirius talks about Aurors suggests that he wasn't one himself. Sirius says that Moody was the best Auror the Ministry ever had, but never indicates that he knew Moody personally. Sirius also talks rather matter-of-factly about how Rosier and Wilkes were both killed by Aurors, without suggesting that he or anyone he knew was involved. Also, no one ever makes the observation that they were shocked that an Auror like Sirius would work for Voldemort. So if Sirius worked as an Auror, then he was a rather middling and low-level one. And that just doesn't sit right with me. Hmmm. So what might Sirius have been? Eh, pretty much all of the bright students score jobs working for MoM, right? So I'm thinking that Sirius might have been ::flips through Lexicon:: in the Department of Magical Catastrophes ("DMC"). Yes, this might work. See, we know Fudge was in the DMC. We have theorized that Avery was there, too. We know Sirius is good at transfiguration (animagus, conjuring manacles), which might come in handy when one needs to repair something through transfiguration. Sirius in the DMC is also rather Bangy. See, Fudge worked there and was one of the first to arrive to find Sirius chuckling over the huge hole in the ground. Perhaps Avery arrives too, finding his buddy Sirius in a whole heap of trouble. You'd expect some compassion from Fudge and Avery in this situation, you know, professional courtesy for a colleague and all. Instead, Fudge and Avery tamper with the evidence because they are both Supremely Evil Death Eaters With No Remorse At All. As for Sirius, he doesn't express much of an opinion about Fudge or Avery one way or the other. That's because Sirius doesn't know they are Supremely Evil. He figures they are old work colleagues who arrested him because they were just doing their jobs. He harbors no ill will toward them . . . yet. Canon? Yeah, I've got canon. Fudge seems to know a fair amount about Black, doesn't he? "Potter trusted Black beyond all his other friends. Nothing changed when they left school." Fudge knows that Black was the best man at James' wedding and was Harry's godfather. Fudge also seems to think a great deal of Black's magical ability: "Nobody but trained Hit Wizards from the Magical Law Enforcement Squad would have stood a chance against Black once he was cornered." I submit that Fudge knows Black's background and abilities because they worked together in the DMC for a few years before Voldemort fell. Also, Snape's conduct indicates that Black might have worked at the DMC. See, Snape thinks that Black has confunded the Trio in the Shrieking Shack. One would think DMC workers like Sirius would need to be very good at confunding people to cover up catastrophes. The Snapefans ought to like this bit because Sirius at the DMC means Snape would have had a good reason to think the Trio was confunded. So . . . can Sirius be in the DMC, then? If so, someone will have to work out whether Sirius was above, below, or on the same level as Fudge and Avery. Cindy (who has enjoyed DG's DE musings and finds them exceptionally Bangy) From dorbandb at yahoo.com Fri Mar 15 21:42:51 2002 From: dorbandb at yahoo.com (dorbandb) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 21:42:51 -0000 Subject: memory charms not used on Dursleys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36602 The MoM uses memory charms on muggles so they have no recollection of any contact with the world of magic. We know this is true from many instances in the books. An exception seems to be the Dursleys. 1). In SS, on the island, Hagrid attempts to turn Dudley into a pig - but he only succeeds in giving him a tail. Apparently, Dudley keeps his tail for a full month before being taken to a hospital in London to have the "ruddy tail removed" before attending Smeltings. It is inconceivable that this is a wizarding hospital, so it must be a muggle hospital - to have a pig tail removed?!? How could Vernon possibly explain this to a muggle surgeon? But the real issue here is that the Dursleys have all been exposed to magic and the has been NO memory modification performed on them. 2). In CoS, after Dobby does his thing, an owl "swooped through the dining room window, dropped a letter on Mrs. Mason's head, and swooped out again." No mention is made of a memory charm for Mrs. Mason, although it could be argued that none was necessary because owls aren't themselves magic, and perhaps an owl delivering a letter is not considered blatant enough to warrant a memory charm. But Vernon actually reads the letter from the MOM, thus, the Dursleys are again exposed to magic WITHOUT having their memory modified. (A couple questions regarding this passage - what must Mafalda Hopkirk (Improper Use of Magic Department) have been thinking to send an owl into a muggle residence where it might be (and was) seen by muggles other that the Dursleys? Very irresponsible, I should think. And how about the owl just dropping the letter on some starnger's head - not a very secure method of delivering confidential correspondence. And I thought the owls were supposed to be very disceerning in regards to parcel delivery...) 3). In PoA, after the Marge inceident, Fudge mentions that "Miss [Marjorie] Dursley has been punctured and her memory has been modified." No mention is made of modifying the memories of the remaining Dursleys. There are a number of questions that arise from this: - If the Dursleys are plain old muggles, why wouldn't they be subjected to the memory modifications that other muggles must undergo. - Are muggle parents of wizards (i.e., the Grangers) EVER subjected to memory modification, or are they, like the Dursleys, now part of the wizard world and to be trusted to keep the wizard world secret. - We have discussed the possibility of memory modification on Neville, but is memory modification santioned by the MOM for use on/against a wizard and/or a muggle with wizarding relatives? - If the MoM does not sanction memory modification of wizards NOR muggle parents of wizards, then aren't there an awful lot of muggles that know about the wizarding world? After all, most wizards now come from a mixed background of muggle/magic. I can't reach any conclusions from any of this. There seems to be little consistency in the practice of memory modification. Brian From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu Fri Mar 15 21:53:35 2002 From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (Hillman, Lee) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:53:35 -0500 Subject: All things green tally Message-ID: <95774A6A6036D411AFEA00D0B73C864303B05919@exmc3.urmc.rochester.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 36603 Greetings! Dicentra posted the tally and noted the lack of elves, geists, and mods' participation. I have also noted the lack of Slytherin participation. I am here to declare for most Slytherins everywhere (glares knowingly at the one person who submitted answers), that we clearly have better things to do than count all our greenness. We'd rather sit back and let you other houses do the work. Perhaps now you realize how omni-present Slytherin really is in your lives.... Bwahahahahaha.... Gwen (listening to her inner Severus and Lucius!) Slytherin prefect From zoehooch at yahoo.com Fri Mar 15 21:57:02 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 21:57:02 -0000 Subject: Female Death Eaters and Ron In-Reply-To: <02b601c1cbcb$c5a1cf00$40b868d5@jody> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36604 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jedi Knight Jo" wrote: > I have a question too: Why exactly does Ron have Charlie's old wand? I know he has a lot of hand me downs, but wouldn't Charlie need his wand? I thought a wizard kept their wand until it broke or got lost or whatever - if the wand is tuned to the wizard, surely a new one wouldn't fit that well if the old one was still working? I've always thought it's because Charlie needed a diffent kind of wand because of his work with dragons. An "extra-strong" model or something like that. ZoeHooch From margdean at erols.com Fri Mar 15 22:27:49 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:27:49 -0500 Subject: Snape for Headmaster! References: <008801c1cc2d$1f1132e0$3531c2cb@price> Message-ID: <3C927565.73AC80F8@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36605 Tabouli wrote: > Hmm... here's something for us all to ponder... let's say Draco's > suggestion was taken up. Dumbledore is removed, and Snape is offered > the position of Headmaster. Would he accept? (I say no, but what do > you think?) If so, how would he perform in the role, what would > happen and how would Hogwarts change?? Mwa ha ha. I say yes, and the reason would be that Dumbledore and Snape Planned It That Way, to take the DE's off guard. Harry and the rest of the students (apart from the Slytherins) would be appalled. Lucius Malfoy and Son would be delighted, thinking it was their idea. Until, of course, Our Severus was ready to show his true colors, spring from hiding and hit Voldy where it hurt! (Ambush, anybody?) How many of the other teachers would be In On The Plot is an interesting question. --Margaret Dean From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri Mar 15 22:05:25 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 22:05:25 -0000 Subject: Thanking Snape? & Apologies (WAS Where was Snape?) In-Reply-To: <3a.2391504c.29c3815c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36606 Eloise wrote (about whether the Trio owes Snape an apology): > He didn't need saving, but ideally the trio *should* apologise for knocking > him out IMHO. It's one of the things that I'm constantly battling to get my > kids to understand. 'But I didn't *mean* to'.....No, but civilised people > apologise for injury caused by accident. If they don't, it implies that they > don't care what effect their actions have on others and morally, it might > just as well have been intentional. Hmmm. I think we have to be clear about the various kinds of apologies, and we have to distinguish between owing someone an apology and deciding to apologize for other reasons. To start, it is quite common to apologize just to make someone feel better. Lupin demonstrates this in canon: "I heard about the match, . . . and I'm sorry about your broomstick. Is there any chance of fixing it?" Lupin actually says the words "I'm sorry," which is pretty unusual in canon. Obviously, Lupin is not responsible for the demise of Harry's broom. Even if he is feeling remorseful because his attendance at Hogwarts necessitated the Willow, there has been plenty of time for the Willow to be removed and reduced to so much twitchy kindling. Nevertheless, Lupin gives us one of the most direct apologies in the book. Similarly, Harry apologizes to Lupin during their Patronus lesson. Harry faints, and when he wakes up, he mutters, "Sorry." Again, there's no reason for an apology there either. So sure. It's OK and quite common to apologize just because you feel like it. Or it would be polite. Or it would help you get out of an awkward situation. Or it would make the other person feel better. Or it would diffuse tension. But wizards seem to have trouble with Real Apologies. The kind of apology that sticks in your throat. The kind of apology when you are owning up to a problem you shouldn't have created. The kind of apology you owe when you really did the wrong thing. This is the kind of situation we might have when Harry knocked Snape out. But I still think that no apology is in order there. Harry did the right thing and the necessary thing by knocking Snape out. Why should Harry be morally obligated to apologize for doing the right thing? Indeed, if there is a moral obligation to apologize when one does the correct thing, then we'd have all manner of meaningless apologies flying about. That said, I have to kick myself, because I overlooked perhaps the biggest, most important apology in the books. In my favorite scene in my favorite book, no less: "Forgive me, Remus," said Black. "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?" Now, what on earth are Black and Lupin apologizing for here? Back when Voldemort fell, no one knew whom to trust. Neither did anything wrong by failing to trust the other. It was nothing personal, and it was unavoidable. Yet there they are, going out of their way to apologize before, uh, murdering someone in cold blood. A lot of people have expressed dissatisfaction with this scene, and perhaps one reason is that neither character has any good reason to be apologizing. I don't know. So that brings me back to my original point: wizards are rather clueless about when a Real Apology is in order, and they seem to come up short in that department. Cindy (who apologizes at the drop of a hat and is trying to break herself of the habit) From zoehooch at yahoo.com Fri Mar 15 22:07:23 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 22:07:23 -0000 Subject: I'm Called Mrs Norris (Filk) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36607 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > > A FLIRTIAC Filk, > to the melody of 'I'm called Little Buttercup', from HMS Lollipop... I mean > Pinafore. Somewhere, in a small studio with upright piano, I know there is someone writing the music and lyrics for "Harry Potter: The Musical", with the hope that JKR will approve it. The West End in 2006? ZoeHooch From devilsangel0809 at aol.com Fri Mar 15 22:19:55 2002 From: devilsangel0809 at aol.com (lilymariepotter) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 22:19:55 -0000 Subject: All things green tally In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36608 Dicentra said: "Before this whole site goes under, I'm posting the latest tally as of March 15th, 8:50am -0700: 34 Gryffindor 29 Ravenclaw 10 Hufflepuff 5 Slytherin The odd numbers from Gryff and Raven come from two repeated posts, for which I had to dock points. (GoF 298 and PoA 32 were used twice.) See post 36388 for the original assignment. " Here's my 5 (hopefully not repeats) all are from PoA US First Edition. And i claim all my points for Slytherin! 1. Page 13: Harry just had time to register its handsome green cover, emblazoned with the golden title 'The Monster Book of Monsters" before it flipped onto its edge and scuttled sideways along the bed like some weird crab. 2. Page 128: Snape picked up Trevor the toad in his left hand and dipped a small spoon into Neville's potion which was now green. 3. Page 135: "If all goes well, Professor Boggart Snape will be forced into that vulture-topped hat, and that green dress, with that big red handbag." -Professor Lupin 4. Page 201: Professors McGonagall and Flitwick had just entered the pub with a flurry of snowflakes, shortly followed by Hagrid, who was deep in coversation with a portly man in a lime-green bowler hat and a pinstriped cloak --- Cornelius Fudge, Minister of Magic. 5. Page 228: It was Professor Trelawney gliding towards them as though on wheels. She had put on a green sequined dress in honor of the occasion, making her look more than ever like a glittering, oversized dragonfly. ****Starlite**** From lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 15 22:22:49 2002 From: lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com (Ms Lizard Gizzard) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:22:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] memory charms not used on Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020315222249.70172.qmail@web13506.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36609 --- dorbandb wrote: > The MoM uses memory charms on muggles so they have > no recollection of > any contact with the world of magic. We know this > is true from many > instances in the books. An exception seems to be > the Dursleys I think you are the applying memmod for muggles too broadly. Obviously the memmod is to keep muggles from discovering the wizard world. The Dursleys are muggles, but their lives have been too deeply infused with magic to even try to pretend it does not exist. I don't believe that the Dursleys are "the only exception" either. Imagine if Hermione's parents had to have their memories adjusted after going to Gringotts! Besides, the Obliviate charm is very strong. Remember the poor groundskeeper at the campground in GoF. He was having difficulty remembering what day it was, thanks to the number of times his memory was modified. To continually blast the Dursleys every time something magical happened would have left them drooling and babbling years ago. Liz Giz __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/ From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com Fri Mar 15 22:47:34 2002 From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 22:47:34 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Thanking Snape? & Apologies (WAS Where was Snape?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36610 >From: "cindysphynx" >That said, I have to kick myself, because I overlooked perhaps the >biggest, most important apology in the books. In my favorite scene >in my favorite book, no less: > >"Forgive me, Remus," said Black. >"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?" > >Now, what on earth are Black and Lupin apologizing for here? Back >when Voldemort fell, no one knew whom to trust. Neither did anything >wrong by failing to trust the other. It was nothing personal, and it >was unavoidable. Yet there they are, going out of their way to >apologize before, uh, murdering someone in cold blood. A lot of >people have expressed dissatisfaction with this scene, and perhaps >one reason is that neither character has any good reason to be >apologizing. I don't know. I think you belittle this apology, and to your peril. These were two best friends, back in the early 80's, and they both believed, at some level, the worst about one another. They're both feeling pretty bad about their mutual mistakes, and in patching it up, they're "getting the band back together!" >So that brings me back to my original point: wizards are rather >clueless about when a Real Apology is in order, and they seem to come >up short in that department. Actually, my favorite apology is from the same book, just a bit earlier. "...Nothing will have changed." "Yeah, it will," said Ron fiercely. "You won't have to do all the work alone this time, Hermione. I'll help." "Oh, Ron!" Hermione flung her arms around Ron's neck and broke down... "Ron, I'm really, really sorry about Scabbers...," she sobbed. "Oh--well--he was old," said Ron..." Hermione thought she was in the right the whole time, and indeed she was, but when the evidence still pointed to a case of ratricide, she finally came to her senses and apologised for the actions of her pet, abetted by herself by not keeping a tighter leash on him. Granted, it needed the catalyst of Buckbeak's case to make them come together, but when the chips were down, the apologies were there. >Cindy (who apologizes at the drop of a hat and is trying to break >herself of the habit) You'll want to work on that, Cindy. People aren't going to think you're terribly Tough if you keep apologising, you know... J _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri Mar 15 23:14:49 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 23:14:49 -0000 Subject: Death Eater Modus Operendi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36611 DG wrote: > This, then, begs two questions: > > 1) Was Voldy alone when he went after Harry and his parents? > > 2) If so, why break with established procedures? > > and as an (unrelated) bonus question: > > 3) What happens if Harry uses Avra Kedavra on Voldy?? Oooh, bonus questions. I love bonus questions! :-) Was Voldemort alone when he attacked the Potters? This one isn't that difficult, I'd say. No, he wasn't completely alone, as someone (possibly Pettigrew) retrieved his wand. Also, Pettigrew presumably had to reveal the secret so that Voldemort could find the Potters. To make that scene Big, we can't have Pettigrew and Voldemort eating popcorn by the fire when Pettigrew casually tells Voldemort how to find the Potters. No, Pettigrew has to *show* Voldemort how to find them, I would think. That way, we can have a Big scene in which Peter rings the bell carrying a nice houseplant, James opens the door, and the battle starts when James sees Voldemort. Boy, that is Big, because we can have a close-up of the look on James' face when he sees he's been betrayed. I also figure Pettigrew fired the Dark Mark into the air over the Potters' house. That is how Sirius, Hagrid and everyone else found the Potters' house so quickly. So, then, why did Voldemort go in without a full contingent of DEs? That's tougher. First, we know the ranks were a bit depleted by this point. In the worst case, Voldemort is down Karkaroff, Dolohov, Mulciber, Rosier, Wilkes, Travers, Snape (who can't apparate away from Hogwarts quickly), the Lestranges (who may have been imprisoned already and talked their way out later to torture the Longbottoms). Second, we have to figure that if he's smart (which is highly debatable), Voldemort doesn't summon all DEs on all missions. To keep them from learning each others' identities, he probably has them in cells, and he is limited by how many he can use at any one time. The last time we tried to work out the DE cells, I proposed the following (Message 35,071): *********** >To recap, then, we have Death Eater Cell 1 with Rookwood, Karkaroff, > Wilkes, Travers, Dolohov, Snape, Mulciber. We have Death Eater > Cell 2 with Pettigrew, Avery, Malfoy, MacNair, Crabbe, Goyle, Nott, > Crouch Jr., the Lestranges and . . . Bagman. Karkaroff only knows > about the people in his cell, and he betrays every single one of them > that he knows to be alive. Snape doesn't know about Pettigrew > because he's in the other cell, and Snape isn't even sure about > Malfoy. ************* Assume Voldemort wants to leave some DEs guarding his lair, leave some guarding whatever treasures he covets, give some the night off, and leave certain SYCOPHANTS behind because, like Avery, they are just plain more trouble than they are worth. Subtract out DEs who are generally not too bright (Crabbe and Goyle), and you are down 12 DEs. Voldemort might be spread pretty thin there. No problem, though. Voldemort figured this mission is like shooting fish in a barrel and decides to staff it rather leanly. He is going to bring Pettigrew, so he takes a look at Pettigrew's cell, Cell 2. He decides to leave Bagman home because he's an idiot. MacNair attracts too much attention with that huge axe he carries around. Crouch Jr. is very green and might bolt. That leaves Lucius, and Voldemort just doesn't fully trust Lucius because Lucius is smarter than Voldemort. So Voldemort just goes with Pettigrew. Voldemort showed up with the one thing he needs to make this mission run smoothly -- Pettigrew. And as it turns out, this was not really a mistake. After all, stage 1 and stage 2 (killing James and Lily) went just fine. Finally, what happens if Harry uses AK on Voldemort? Uh, no idea. And the fact that I have no idea means that this scenario might well be the climactic scene in the final showdown. I think perhaps if Voldemort or Harry use AK on the other, they will *both* be killed due to that blood tie they have now. And if that's the case, I have to wonder why Dumbledore would be Gleaming about that possibility. Cindy (noting that DG would be welcome on the Big Bang Destroyer, but the only way to board the Big Bang is to swim fast enough to catch up with it) From boggles at earthlink.net Fri Mar 15 23:17:58 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:17:58 -0600 Subject: Animagi and their minds (and tails) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36612 At 10:02 PM +0000 3/14/02, uncmark wrote: > >In the Potterverse, the 'Fantastic Beasts' writes there are few >flying anamagi as the bat or bird brain forgets where there going. I don't think that that is in fact what it says. If I'm thinking of the same passage you are, it's actually in QttA, and by my reading it says two different things in rapid succession: 1) Animagi who transform into winged creatyres can fly but are rare. 2) Wizards who are transfigured into flying beasts can fly but have the brains of the transfigured creature and thus can't remember where they wanted to go. The second seems to be referring not to animagi, who transfigure themselves, but those people who are transfigured by other people, like Draco in the unfortunate ferret episode or the Hairy MacBoons in FBaWTFT. (For those who have played AD&D, it's 'Polymorph Self' versus 'Polymorph Other'.) Aside: is there a distinction between transfiguring onesself into an animal and being an animagus? Is Krum a shark animagus? If not, isn't it a good thing he didn't transform all the way, as if he'd had a shark's brain he might have hurt someone? At any rate, given how rare animagi are _supposed_ to be (remember, there were only seven registered Animagi this century), it's entirely possible Mr. Whisp has never met one, much less one that flies, and thus is talking through his pointy hat about them. >BTW does the wizard choose there anamagi form or is it dictated by >their nature? I could picture Darco Malfoy studying to become an >anamagi and becoming a dungbeetle. Above any other considerations, the form one takes as an animagus seems to be based on one's _name_. Sirius Black becomes a great black dog. Rita Skeeter becomes an insect. One's internal nature only comes into play after the Rule of Names, when the name doesn't lend much guidance. Thus, yes, if any of the Weasleys become Animagi they will be weasels (whether that is the derivation of the name or not), and I would be very, very wary of letting anyone by the name of Draco become an animagus. At 11:33 AM -0600 3/15/02, Jamie Lipton wrote: >So I pose this question: What if Sirius had actually managed to attack >Wormtail that night in Gryffindor tower, and succeeded in cutting off his >tail? How would the loss of the tail impact Peter's human form? He'd never be able to sit down again! -- - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon boggles at earthlink.net === Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 === GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+ c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+ ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U! From bonnie at niche-associates.com Fri Mar 15 23:21:35 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 23:21:35 -0000 Subject: Thanking Snape? & Apologies (WAS Where was Snape?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36613 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > But wizards seem to have trouble with Real Apologies. The kind of > apology that sticks in your throat. The kind of apology when you are > owning up to a problem you shouldn't have created. The kind of > apology you owe when you really did the wrong thing. This is the > kind of situation we might have when Harry knocked Snape out. But I > still think that no apology is in order there. Harry did the right > thing and the necessary thing by knocking Snape out. Why should > Harry be morally obligated to apologize for doing the right thing? > Indeed, if there is a moral obligation to apologize when one does the > correct thing, then we'd have all manner of meaningless apologies > flying about. Whether Harry Did the Right Thing with the expelliarmus is questioned in canon, even by Harry. No sooner has Snape done a face plant than Sirius tells Harry "you should have left him to me" and Harry can't look at Sirius because he's suddenly not sure it *was* the right thing to do. > > "Forgive me, Remus," said Black. > "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?" I have nothing to add here. It's just so good I thought I'd leave it in. Now that I'm at it, I'd like to say that I've been aboard the Fourth Man kayak since its deployment lo these many weeks ago. You just haven't seen me because I was stuffed in the extreme front end of the kayak, where people's feet go, frantically bailing water out of the bottom with a tea strainer. Yes, I have been supporting Fourth Man (straight up, please) with VIBES rather than "me too" posts, which must count for something. However, when we make the move to the inflatable raft, you will have to cut open the kayak to get me out. (I'll be in physical therapy for a bit while trying to get my backbone to stop forming a nearly perfect question mark.) --Dicentra, who has been eyeing a display of featherboas but can't decide which color to choose From degroote at altavista.com Fri Mar 15 23:26:05 2002 From: degroote at altavista.com (Vicky DeGroote) Date: 15 Mar 2002 15:26:05 -0800 Subject: animagi forms & wands Message-ID: <20020315232605.27881.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36614 An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From bonnie at niche-associates.com Fri Mar 15 23:35:55 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 23:35:55 -0000 Subject: Death Eater Modus Operandi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36615 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > I also figure Pettigrew fired the Dark Mark into the air over the > Potters' house. That is how Sirius, Hagrid and everyone else found > the Potters' house so quickly. The old "how did the non-Secret-Keepers know where to find the Potters" question again, eh? Not a bad answer. But what about this? If Sirius had been the Secret-Keeper and Peter had known where they were just as a matter of course, he could have taken Voldemort by the hand into Godric's Hollow and led him to the front door and Voldemort STILL wouldn't know where they were. Remember how Flitwick said you could be pressing your nose up against their sitting-room window and not find them? Something about the Fidelius Charm must prevent the secret from being learned even if someone who isn't the Secret-Keeper tells you. So I figure Sirius and Dumbledore knew about the Potters' location before the charm was performed, but they couldn't impart that knowledge to Voldemort or anyone else once the information was woven into Peter's excuse for a soul. --Dicentra, who is only reading Cindy's posts today and is impressed that she was able to quote all those green things from memory. If that's really what she did. From degroote at altavista.com Sat Mar 16 00:10:51 2002 From: degroote at altavista.com (Vicky DeGroote) Date: 15 Mar 2002 16:10:51 -0800 Subject: Ginny-Harry-Lily thingy/Neville's memory & Snape Message-ID: <20020316001051.14143.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36616 An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sat Mar 16 00:40:41 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:40:41 -0000 Subject: Animagi and their minds (and tails) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36617 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jennifer Boggess Ramon wrote: > 2) Wizards who are transfigured into flying beasts can fly but have > the brains of the transfigured creature and thus can't remember where > they wanted to go. It might be that an animag's animal skull is Wizard Space, and so has room for the human brain... > ...people who are transfigured by other people, > like Draco in the unfortunate ferret episode... Draco the ferret had enough brain to know he was being punished, and what for. Back in his "human" form, draco remembers enough to know he wants to tell Daddy. > Above any other considerations, the form one takes as an animagus > seems to be based on one's _name_. Sirius Black becomes a great > black dog. Rita Skeeter becomes an insect. One's internal nature > only comes into play after the Rule of Names, when the name doesn't > lend much guidance. > And then, there is the polyjuice transformation, when Hermione transformed herself into a cat, although we aren't told about her size. > At 11:33 AM -0600 3/15/02, Jamie Lipton wrote: > >So I pose this question: What if Sirius had actually managed to attack > >Wormtail that night in Gryffindor tower, and succeeded in cutting off his > >tail? How would the loss of the tail impact Peter's human form? > > He'd never be able to sit down again! > Isn't that where he keeps his brain? From abigailnus at yahoo.com Sat Mar 16 00:48:26 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:48:26 -0000 Subject: Ron's 'sight' In-Reply-To: <3C901D97.F852E230@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36618 Replying to a slightly stale post here - an occupational hazard when you don't check the group for over 24 hours and over 100 (!) messages accumulate. Hope somebody's still interested. Katze offered additional proofs for Ron's alleged prescience: > Another interesting one that I just found...Ron mentions an animal, and > then Trelawney takes the tea cup away. Trelawney see a Grim: > "The Grim, my dear, the Grim!" ... "The giant, spectral dog that haunts > churchyards! My dear boy, it is an omen - ..." > > Now...a few pages later...while at lunch, Ron says: "Harry," ... "you > haven't seen a great black dog anywhere, have you?" > > The interesting thing is that Ron says _black_ dog, where Trelawney > never mentions a color. But only a few paragraphs later, I believe, Ron mentions that his uncle (?) Bilious saw a Grim and died soon after, so presumably Ron has heard about the Grim and knows that it's supposed to be a black dog. > > Also, I believe Ron was the first to suggest that Lockhart had not > performed the exploits chronicled in his books. (CoS, Ch. 6, last line) Now that's just common sense, frankly, and I was surprised that no-one except Ron seriously considered this as a possibility until Lockhart confirmed it himself. I assumed Lockhart was a fake almost immediately, and certainly took it for granted after the pixie incident. The scene in the teachers' room after Ginny is taken certainly suggests that the other teachers have no faith in his abilities and haven't for quite a while. > > He also made some statements regarding Percy and his job becoming more > important than his family, but I don't remember which book it was in. Again, this statement (if it is indeed a true prediction which we have yet to discover) probably stems more from Ron's knowledge of Percy's character as his brother than some occult insight, in much the same way that he tells Harry in GoF that the twins are obsessed with making money. It's not prescience to evaluate your knowledge of a person's character and past actions and draw conclusion on what they might do in the future. In general my feelings on Ron's supposed Sight are very ambivalent. There's no denying that he does occasionally hit the bullseye - suggesting that Riddle killed Myrtle, and the infamous Divinations homework scene in which he predicts his fall-out with Harry and his own drowning. That very same scene, however, contains many other predictions which never came true - Ron was never trampled by a rampaging Hippogriff, or lost a fight or a bet (I forget which one was supposed to happen to him and which to Harry). He certainly didn't drown twice. So, while I'm not denying that Ron occasionally gets to make those neat foreshadowning comments that JKR likes so much, I'm really not sure if we're supposed to infer something from them about his abilities, or whether JKR is using him as a mouthpiece for a neat joke that makes rereading the books fun. I imagine time will tell. Abigail From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sat Mar 16 00:58:26 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:58:26 -0000 Subject: memory & Snape In-Reply-To: <20020316001051.14143.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36619 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Vicky DeGroote wrote: >Part of the reason Snape is so heartlessly cruel to Neville could be >because he doesn't agree with coddling Neville and fuzzing out the >ugly truth. Maybe he thinks he can jog Neville's memory by >antagonizing him. Maybehe feels he can teach this poor child >more if he can get past the forgetfullness and bumbling. >This could be one of his wierd ways of caring for the kids. Maybe it isn't so weird. Most counselors today would oppose the use of a memory charm, if there were one. Neville, someday, must face his memories, if he is to be healthy. The forgetfullness and bumbling will continue until then. The *really cruel* agent in Neville's life is Gramma, and her memory charm. Snape can't appeal to Muggle psychology to back him up, but he may know it, by intuition or experience. Tex From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sat Mar 16 00:58:55 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 00:58:55 -0000 Subject: memory & Snape In-Reply-To: <20020316001051.14143.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36620 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Vicky DeGroote wrote: >Part of the reason Snape is so heartlessly cruel to Neville could be >because he doesn't agree with coddling Neville and fuzzing out the >ugly truth. Maybe he thinks he can jog Neville's memory by >antagonizing him. Maybehe feels he can teach this poor child >more if he can get past the forgetfullness and bumbling. >This could be one of his wierd ways of caring for the kids. Maybe it isn't so weird. Most counselors today would oppose the use of a memory charm, if there were one. Neville, someday, must face his memories, if he is to be healthy. The forgetfullness and bumbling will continue until then. The *really cruel* agent in Neville's life is Gramma, and her memory charm. Snape can't appeal to Muggle psychology to back him up, but he may know it, by intuition or experience. From saintbacchus at yahoo.com Sat Mar 16 01:10:56 2002 From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 01:10:56 -0000 Subject: House qualities + Dursley memory modification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36621 Elirtai writes: << > I disagree with this, because I don't think competence > is an inherent Ravenclaw trait. I've known plenty of > people who got through school without the brains to fill > a thimble just because they studied hard. Yes, but wouldn't you rather think those belong in Hufflepuff? >> My fault for being unclear. I'm thinking of a specific guy here, as my example. He's adept at anything that has some kind of formula - he's infinitely better at math and science than I am - but critical reasoning is beyond him. Most of our arguments ended in me shouting, "But that doesn't make any sense!!!" He's quite able to learn anything clear-cut (unlike me), but he's not good at applying the book knowledge to the actual world. That's what I meant. << My impression is that Fudge *is* slowly getting himself (and everyone else) in deep trouble. I think the situation will become bigger in every sense than he can handle, and that he won't have a happy end. That's a prediction. >> I agree. Do you suppose he'll be killed or exiled? I could see him becoming a tyrant in order to hold onto power, but that could just be the lingering effects of my Poli Sci class. :) Gwen writes: << I am here to declare for most Slytherins everywhere (glares knowingly at the one person who submitted answers), that we clearly have better things to do than count all our greenness. We'd rather sit back and let you other houses do the work. >> See? I *knew* hard work wasn't a Slyth trait! ^_~ Brian asks about three specific times when the Dursleys were not memory-modded: 1. The pig tail - I don't know if it's the same in England, but a doctor in the U.S. would have his license taken away if he discussed any details. I'd be willing to be the Dursleys would hound him until that happened, too. 2. The owl on Mrs. Mason's head - I agree, it was completely ridiculous to send a post owl into a roomful of Muggles in order to inform someone that he may have been seen doing magic. Cripes. The Masons didn't suspect that something magical was afoot, though, so their memories wouldn't need to be modified. 3. Blowing up Aunt Marge - Aunt Marge knows nothing about magic whatsoever, so it would make sense that she'd need her memories modified. The other three Dursleys are painfully aware, though. I agree with Liz Giz - they know too much already, so it would be pointless to modify their memories. Besides, it's not like they're anxious to tell the neighbors all about their magical nephew. << - Are muggle parents of wizards (i.e., the Grangers) EVER subjected to memory modification, or are they, like the Dursleys,now part of the wizard world and to be trusted to keep the wizard world secret. >> I think they must be trusted - imagine having your memory modified every time your children told you how their day went! OTOH, it's possible that the Ministry keeps tabs on possible blabbermouths. << - We have discussed the possibility of memory modification on Neville, but is memory modification santioned by the MOM for use on/against a wizard and/or a muggle with wizarding relatives? >> When it's necessary, I think. It seems kind of silly to me to modify the memory of an infant, but if Harry has the occasional nightmare about his parents, Neville could too. In Neville's case, it might be a form of protection - if he doesn't know anything, he's less likely to be tracked by the remaining Death Eaters. << - If the MoM does not sanction memory modification of wizards NOR muggle parents of wizards, then aren't there an awful lot of muggles that know about the wizarding world? After all, most wizards now come from a mixed background of muggle/magic. >> If there are only 1,000 magical kids a year in the British Isles, that suggests that the wizard population isn't altogether very high. Comparatively, there are a lot of people with knowledge of the Wizarding World, but overall it's not so many. --Anna (still wants to know where Aunt Petunia would get Sorted) From snowwy54 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 16 01:21:03 2002 From: snowwy54 at yahoo.com (snowwy54) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 01:21:03 -0000 Subject: Release Date for Book 5 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36622 The Leaky Cauldron is posting a link to Bloomsbury that they think an announcement will be made Weds about the release date. They are hoping for a mid-summer release. Hooray! From porphyria at mindspring.com Sat Mar 16 01:46:41 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 20:46:41 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neville's memory & Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36623 Kitty espoused a theory I'm particularly fond of myself: Yeah, at the risk of sentimentalizing Snape, I'd say the books do hint at this very possibility. Regardless of how mean Snape is to Neville, he's warm and fuzzy compared to Neville's own family. Uncle Algie literally endangers the child's life (multiple times) in order to smoke out his magical ability, which is one among several indications that adrenaline directly affects wizarding skills. And when Voldemort needed to break Bertha Jorkin's Memory Charm, he did it by repeatedly torturing her. So I've wondered many times whether Snape imagines that if he can either terrify or infuriate Neville enough that it'll break the charm. Doesn't that have Big Bangy potential? I wouldn't put it past Snape's degree of cunning, especially since... Kitty again: Yeah, I've argued this a couple of times myself, especially given Snape's extraordinary double-bluff in CoS when Draco offers to recommend him to his father for the position of headmaster. He manages to say something loyal and supportive of Dumbledore while leaving Draco (and everyone else) with the exact opposite impression. It's really brilliant. And regardless of what we imagine Snape's "real" attitude towards his students to be, the net result is that he does toughen Harry up by honing his sense of stubbornness in the face of antagonism (qualities which serve Harry well against LV later on) and he does no favors for his Slytherin by pampering them. Back to Neville again, I'm always amazed at the way Neville tells his own story towards the beginning of PS/SS. Quoted in part: "My Great Uncle Algie kept trying to catch me off my guard and force some magic out of me -- he pushed me off the end of Blackpool pier once, I nearly drowned -- but nothing happened until I was eight. Great Uncle Algie came round for dinner, and he was hanging me out of an upstairs window by the ankles when my Great Auntie Enid offered him a meringue and he accidentally let go. But I bounced -- all the way down the garden and into the road. They were all really pleased, Gran was crying, she was so happy." What does everyone make of the way Neville phrases it? Is this his black humor? Breezy stoicism? Abject emotional distance? If nothing else, he's not expecting sympathy from his listeners. His speech is the product of a culture whose idea up upbringing is quite merciless and unyielding. If Snape's own concept of education partakes of this same philosophy then it's quite possible that he does intend the best for Neville after all. Maybe the image of Snape in Gran's clothing symbolizes more that we first suspected... ~~Porphyria From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sat Mar 16 02:18:38 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 02:18:38 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Reminder Regarding OoP Release Date Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36624 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 From margdean at erols.com Sat Mar 16 03:13:41 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 22:13:41 -0500 Subject: Apologies References: Message-ID: <3C92B865.9084DB41@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36625 cindysphynx wrote: > That said, I have to kick myself, because I overlooked perhaps the > biggest, most important apology in the books. In my favorite scene > in my favorite book, no less: > > "Forgive me, Remus," said Black. > "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?" > > Now, what on earth are Black and Lupin apologizing for here? Back > when Voldemort fell, no one knew whom to trust. Neither did anything > wrong by failing to trust the other. It was nothing personal, and it > was unavoidable. Yet there they are, going out of their way to > apologize before, uh, murdering someone in cold blood. A lot of > people have expressed dissatisfaction with this scene, and perhaps > one reason is that neither character has any good reason to be > apologizing. I don't know. The answer, I think, is that they are not precisely apologizing but rather asking mutual forgiveness. They are getting out what previously lay between them so that their friendship can be re-established on its old basis of mutual trust. And if they're about to commit cold-blooded murder, they're going to NEED that friendship, boy howdy! (They still do, as it turns out, even after the murder is averted.) On that basis I'd say your instinct that this is the "most important apology in the books" is perfectly sound! --Margaret Dean From Zarleycat at aol.com Sat Mar 16 03:43:42 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 03:43:42 -0000 Subject: Thanking Snape? & Apologies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36626 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > But wizards seem to have trouble with Real Apologies. The kind of > apology that sticks in your throat. The kind of apology when you are > owning up to a problem you shouldn't have created. The kind of > apology you owe when you really did the wrong thing. > That said, I have to kick myself, because I overlooked perhaps the > biggest, most important apology in the books. In my favorite scene > in my favorite book, no less: > > "Forgive me, Remus," said Black. > "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?" > > Now, what on earth are Black and Lupin apologizing for here? Back > when Voldemort fell, no one knew whom to trust. Neither did anything > wrong by failing to trust the other. It was nothing personal, and it > was unavoidable. Yet there they are, going out of their way to > apologize before, uh, murdering someone in cold blood. A lot of > people have expressed dissatisfaction with this scene, and perhaps > one reason is that neither character has any good reason to be > apologizing. I don't know. Your points on general wizard cluelessness regarding Real Apologies are well taken. I would, however, include the Sirius/Remus apologies in the category of well-meaning, but not satisfactory. Yes, they have every reason to apologize to each other. And, I think it was indeed very personal. Here are two people, very close friends, who each suspect the other of being a traitor. How did they each get to that point? Granted, all sorts of horrible things were happening at the time, and I'm sure that a great deal of the fear that people had was caused by living with the unsettling feeling of suddenly not knowing who to trust. But, Sirius and Remus had a long history, they stuck together through Hogwarts, they dealt with the whole werewolf thing. And then, every thing falls to pieces. Sirius can't see Peter as the traitor, so assumes it's Remus. Unless he has some sort of "proof" of Remus' betrayal, it seems that Sirius is pretty quick to decide Remus is the traitor/spy. Sirius then makes his disastrous decision to trust Peter as the Potters Secret Keeper. Whether Remus suspects Sirius before the death of the Potters is unclear. He certainly believes Sirius to be guilty of these crimes after the fact. I can cut Remus some slack here, as the evidence against Sirius seems so incontrovertible. But,we have no evidence that Remus needed any convincing to believe Sirius guilty. As far as we know, he didn't lift a finger to try to ascertain whether there may have been some horrible mistake and that Sirius was really innocent. Remus seems to accept that Sirius would cold-bloodedly arrange for the death of his best friend. On the other hand, maybe Remus' reaction is a result of another potential instance of a lack of a Real Apology. Perhaps Sirius never apologized to Remus for "the prank." Remus could have seen this as a form of betrayal by one of his friends. And, in Remus' view, perhaps that incident left enough of a seed of doubt within him regarding Sirius, which made it that much easier to believe him capable of turning traitor. Marianne From zoehooch at yahoo.com Sat Mar 16 04:03:40 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 04:03:40 -0000 Subject: Tom Marvalo Riddle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36627 I've got a few nagging questions that I'd appreciate some opinions on. How does Tom Riddle know about his mother? How does he know she's a witch? How does he know his middle name is that of his maternal grandfather? Does he know any of this before he comes to Hogwarts or does he learn about it later? ZoeHooch, who is going to be a sixes and sevens this weekend without her HPforGrownups Yahoo group. From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sat Mar 16 05:01:12 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 21:01:12 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Animagi and their minds (and tails) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <417248942.20020315210112@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36628 I don't at all buy transformed animagi having the brains of the animal they've transformed into. If so, then how do they know how to perform the magic to change back? How could Malfoy "give Rita the dirt" when creatures with the brain of a beetle aren't journalists (as a rule)? And why did Padfoot growl at Fudge's insinuations about Harry's sanity? -- With the brain of a dog, he shouldn't be able to understand the conversation. -- Dave From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sat Mar 16 05:02:15 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 21:02:15 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape for Headmaster! In-Reply-To: <3C927565.73AC80F8@erols.com> References: <008801c1cc2d$1f1132e0$3531c2cb@price> <3C927565.73AC80F8@erols.com> Message-ID: <957312287.20020315210215@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36629 Friday, March 15, 2002, 2:27:49 PM, Margaret Dean wrote: MD> Mwa ha ha. I say yes, and the reason would be that Dumbledore MD> and Snape Planned It That Way, to take the DE's off guard. Harry MD> and the rest of the students (apart from the Slytherins) would be MD> appalled. Lucius Malfoy and Son would be delighted, thinking it MD> was their idea. Until, of course, Our Severus was ready to show MD> his true colors, spring from hiding and hit Voldy where it hurt! I think (or at least hope) this is part of the plot of OoP! -- Dave From sandirs at hotmail.com Sat Mar 16 21:20:55 2002 From: sandirs at hotmail.com (Sandi Steinberg) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:20:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Animagi and animal minds Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36630 > >Uncmark had asked >>BTW does the wizard choose there anamagi form or >is it dictated by their nature? I could picture Darco Malfoy studying >to become an anamagi and becoming a dungbeetle.<< > >Abigail Draconi noted: Personally, I favor the dictated by nature form of >anamagi creation. >Even if it *is* up to the wizard to choose, their >nature would guide them to the form they choose. ...I don't see Draco as a >dungbeetle. A peacock or a rooster, maybe. Some sort of animal that struts >around to impress. I agree. I think that Rita Skeeter would NEVER become a beetle if it were not for her overweening competitiveness and the need to snoop in a form that would never be seen as snooping. Given her personal choice, she'd be something FAAARRRRRR grander, a Common Welsh Green, perhaps, since poison green is her color (speaking of Green things in the series. Crocodilians are probably out; certainly not native to Britain. Draco, who fashions himself a jock as the Slytherin seeker would probably want an alter ego that was both elegant and fearsome: a king cobra (again, not exactly something you'd come across on a walk in an English field)perhaps, or an eagle. While I like the peacock analogy, I don't think it's commanding enough for the young man's ego. Sandi Steinberg _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Mar 17 20:59:18 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 20:59:18 -0000 Subject: Thanking Snape? & Apologies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36631 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" wrote: > > On the other hand, maybe Remus' reaction is a result of another > potential instance of a lack of a Real Apology. Perhaps Sirius never > apologized to Remus for "the prank." Remus could have seen this as a > form of betrayal by one of his friends. And, in Remus' view, perhaps > that incident left enough of a seed of doubt within him regarding > Sirius, which made it that much easier to believe him capable of > turning traitor. Good thinking. If I were in Remus' place, trusting my friends to keep me from hurting people - and then one of them decides to *assist*, how ever slightly, for someone to become hurt by me... Pettigrew also increased the distrust between them... No wonder even Remus Lupin was ready to slay the rat but respect to Prongs' memory is enough to prevent it for both. From uncmark at yahoo.com Sun Mar 17 20:36:30 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 20:36:30 -0000 Subject: Animagi and names(Draco and Weasley) WAS Animagi and their minds (and tails) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36632 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jennifer Boggess Ramon wrote: > Above any other considerations, the form one takes as an animagus > seems to be based on one's _name_. Sirius Black becomes a great > black dog. Rita Skeeter becomes an insect. One's internal nature > only comes into play after the Rule of Names, when the name doesn't > lend much guidance. > > Thus, yes, if any of the Weasleys become Animagi they will be weasels (whether that is the derivation of the name or not), and I would be very, very wary of letting anyone by the name of Draco become an animagus. Sorry, Jennifer, but I don't buy 'names' as having control over an anamagus form. Are we to assume that 'Tabby' was a nickname of little Minerva McGonagall growing up? The Weasley family, despite the assonance of their name, are the most UN-WEASEL-LY characters I've ever read. JKR describes them in PofA as "Harry couldn't think of anyone who deserved to win a large pile of gold than the Weasleys". I see some complex magical formula taking into account nature of the wizard (disposition, honor, good vs. evil alignment) hereditary (was a ancestor an animagi & what form), as well as magical ability. > given how rare animagi are _supposed_ to be (remember, there were > only seven registered Animagi this century), I see several hundred wizards attempting Animagus forms a decade. byt quitting when they find their forms something they wouldn't want to be! It also might explain Lucius Malfoy's choice for his son's name. Given his prejudice and view of his family's superiority, he may belive the accepted myth of names and animagus forms and would want a transmogrified dragon for a son in the service of the Dark Lord. Draco may believe this himself and will be in for a surprise at the difficulty of anamagus magic. He would probably blame McGonagall when he sees how difficult it is and if he ever succeeded be terribly disappointed. A peacock wouldn't be much valued in the service of LV. In his defense, I don't like Draco in the first 4 books. He has been presented as a hateful one-dimensional character who did not question a bit his father's service to LV to the point of not caring about the petrification of Hermione and near-death of Ginny in ChoS and welcomed Cedric's death and LV's return to power in GofF. As the Potterverse is supposedly for kid's, I would like to see Draco break out of the Dark Side mold and be redeemed, but i hold little hope for his character as it is. Uncmark From brewpub44 at snet.net Sun Mar 17 22:29:50 2002 From: brewpub44 at snet.net (brewpub44) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:29:50 -0000 Subject: Divination In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36633 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jake Storm" wrote: > >From: ruben at s... > >So, why does Dumbledore keep [Trelawney], when it's clear she's not very > >reliable? > >(whether her fault or not, she's certainly not reliable - and not > >particularly bright either). > I'm surprised no one thinks as I do, that Trelawney is the only Divination teacher Dumbledore can get, just like DADA but for a different reason. As has been stated in the past on this list, wizards don't think very much of divination, hence I doubt many are into it, and if they are, they probably aren't very popular. I suspect they live somewhat isolated lives, either because they are shunned by other wizards (who wants to hear they are dying every twelve minutes?), or because they need to shun others (because every time they meet someone they have a vision that person will die in twelve minutes). It must be a horrible existing for a seer. So it must be hard to get a good divination teacher. So Hogwarts has Trelawney. A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From siriuskase at yahoo.com Sat Mar 16 21:34:44 2002 From: siriuskase at yahoo.com (Sirius Kase) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:34:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Arabella Figg - Animagus?? In-Reply-To: <20020314192900.17949.qmail@web13509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20020316213444.56953.qmail@web14901.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36634 --- Ms Lizard Gizzard wrote: > > Amongst the weirdest rumours I have heard is the one that Mrs Arabella Figg is an animagus, Crookshanks to be exact. > > > I've seen this one bandied about on the kids' sites. I'll give the same argument here that I've made there. Crookshanks is a *boy* cat! As far as I have seen, there is no evidence that transfiguration also results in a sex change. > Liz Giz > There has been one transgender transfiguration. That was between the two Crouches using polyjuice, not animagic. I don't know enough about the theory of magic to know whether the process of becoming an animagi has anything in common with the use of polyjuice to transform. But, it is a common speculation that Hermione would be a cat, so I'm just extrapolating that idea a little further. From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Mar 17 21:30:04 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 21:30:04 -0000 Subject: memory charms not used on Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36635 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dorbandb" wrote: > The MoM uses memory charms on muggles so they have no recollection of > any contact with the world of magic. We know this is true from many > instances in the books. An exception seems to be the Dursleys. Not an only exception... > 1). In SS, on the island, Hagrid attempts to turn Dudley into a pig - > but he only succeeds in giving him a tail. Apparently, Dudley keeps > his tail for a full month before being taken to a hospital in London > to have the "ruddy tail removed" before attending Smeltings. It is > inconceivable that this is a wizarding hospital, so it must be a > muggle hospital - to have a pig tail removed?!? How could Vernon > possibly explain this to a muggle surgeon? But the real issue here is > that the Dursleys have all been exposed to magic and the has been NO > memory modification performed on them. It was a private hospital - and the staff's very discreet. > 2). In CoS, after Dobby does his thing, an owl "swooped through the > dining room window, dropped a letter on Mrs. Mason's head, and swooped > out again." No mention is made of a memory charm for Mrs. Mason, > although it could be argued that none was necessary because owls > aren't themselves magic, and perhaps an owl delivering a letter is not > considered blatant enough to warrant a memory charm. But Vernon > actually reads the letter from the MOM, thus, the Dursleys are again > exposed to magic WITHOUT having their memory modified. (A couple > questions regarding this passage - what must Mafalda Hopkirk (Improper > Use of Magic Department) have been thinking to send an owl into a > muggle residence where it might be (and was) seen by muggles other > that the Dursleys? Very irresponsible, I should think. I doubt it really *was* from Ministry. It could have been a forged letter from a Malfoy. > And how about > the owl just dropping the letter on some starnger's head - not a very > secure method of delivering confidential correspondence. And I > thought the owls were supposed to be very disceerning in regards to > parcel delivery...) Pigwidgeon seemed to have a little trouble with it... but it might have been sent by i.e. Draco Malfoy, who told the Owl to do so... > 3). In PoA, after the Marge inceident, Fudge mentions that "Miss > [Marjorie] Dursley has been punctured and her memory has been > modified." No mention is made of modifying the memories of the > remaining Dursleys. Of course not - *their* memories weren't modified. > There are a number of questions that arise from this: > > - If the Dursleys are plain old muggles, why wouldn't they be > subjected to the memory modifications that other muggles must undergo. > - Are muggle parents of wizards (i.e., the Grangers) EVER subjected to > memory modification, or are they, like the Dursleys, now part of the > wizard world and to be trusted to keep the wizard world secret. Both have wizard/witch in *family* and therefore are members of *wizarding family* - they're not considered Muggles but Squibs. > - We have discussed the possibility of memory modification on Neville, > but is memory modification santioned by the MOM for use on/against a > wizard and/or a muggle with wizarding relatives? They *do* try to avoid it. Some (like Lockhart) are keen to put memorycharms, others not so much. > - If the MoM does not sanction memory modification of wizards NOR > muggle parents of wizards, then aren't there an awful lot of muggles > that know about the wizarding world? After all, most wizards now come > from a mixed background of muggle/magic. Simple. A magical person in a household defines the household as magical. Those members who can't do magic are squibs, those who can are wizards or witches. They *do* tend to put importance of family around - Harry's safe in the care of his relations, Voldemort used his father's bone to renew himself... They're not after breaking families - only Death Eaters do that. From uncmark at yahoo.com Mon Mar 18 00:00:55 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 00:00:55 -0000 Subject: Divination In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36636 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "brewpub44" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jake Storm" wrote: > From: ruben at s... > So, why does Dumbledore keep [Trelawney], when it's clear she's > not very > > >reliable? > (whether her fault or not, she's certainly not reliable - and not > particularly bright either). > > I'm surprised no one thinks as I do, that Trelawney is the only > Divination teacher Dumbledore can get, just like DADA but for a > different reason. > > As has been stated in the past on this list, wizards don't think > very much of divination, hence I doubt many are into it Or few simply have the talent for it Parvati Patil and Lavender Brown seem to like it, but I don't know if it's true talent or maybe a private joy at being better than Hermione at something. (I'm assuming they're Hermione's roommates and may subconsciously recent her for being first in everything, much like Ron is bothered by Harry getting all the attention.) > ...they probably aren't very popular. I suspect they live > somewhat isolated lives, either because they are shunned by other > wizards (who wants to hear they are dying every twelve minutes?), > or because they need to shun others (because every time they meet > someone they have a vision that person will die in twelve minutes). > It must be a horrible existing for a seer. How few true seers are there? And how many visions are accurate? If you tell someone to be careful on the 12th, they may do so and have no accident. You may have saved their life, but noone will know it. Also how much money does a true seer make? If a wizard did private readings for rich wizards they'd probably make more than they would teaching bratty wizards who joke about seeing each other's Uranus. It's a special person who is an effective teacher and they are rarely the tops in their fields. (Likewise the tops in their fields are rarely effective teachers) > So it must be hard to get a good divination teacher. Or any good teacher. They're worth their weight in Gold, but schools can't afford to pay them what they're worth. My Humble Opinion Uncmark From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Mar 17 23:23:50 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 23:23:50 -0000 Subject: In support of Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36637 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kmohdia" wrote: Yes - Neville has social courage. That's something most of his fellow Gryffindors lack (most clear example is Neville asking a girl out compared to Ron&Harry). In classes he's not afraid to fail. Yet, he doesn't blunder *all* the time, and never in herbology. Neville's lack of prejudice... I think that Neville's upset (like Harry was when he blundered as much as Neville) most of the time he blunders. Neville's an empath, I think. Now, the banishing charm wasn't hurting anyone, but Harry was upset enough not to be able to concentrate... and Neville was just as upset *because* Harry was. He feels what other beings do... Just imagine Potions. Everyone's bashing poor little beetles into powder - Neville feels the pain - and melts his cauldron (maybe he knew it somewhere deep inside, and hopes that if it happens often enough, they'll stop killing animals for potions!)... Snape making him disembowl toads... It's just horrible! Not only that empath ability to feel for the toads, but the likeness of them to his Trevor... Imagine- McGonagall tells the class to transfigure a toad into a teapot and Neville refuses. Are we going to see Neville refusing to do transfiguration/potions on ethical basis? Saying it's not Right to do so? Now *that* would be Neville's way of showing some spine - his courage in standing up against a teacher for the sake of animals... From siriuskase at yahoo.com Sun Mar 17 01:38:33 2002 From: siriuskase at yahoo.com (Sirius Kase) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 17:38:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Concern for Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020317013833.15007.qmail@web14911.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36638 --- Mr_Boregard wrote: > As you know, history has a bad habit of repeating itself. > > We know that Harry Ron and Hermione are a set trio and the best of friends. We also know that Neville is often mixed up with the trio and often ends up helping them out in one way or another. And another thing we know is that the trio will stick up for Neville when others are less than kind to him. > > I am scared that Neville will become the fourth member of the group...(the weakest member emotionally and skill wise). > > The question I pose is... is it possible that Neville will be lured to the darkside like Pettigrew before him? > > It seems to me that there is a possible parallel between Neville and Pettigrew.> > I think that Rowling is intentionally setting up parallels between the generations. And Neville would be the Pettigrew of this group. That doesn't mean that history must repeat itself. Neville seems to be made of tougher stuff than Pettigrew. He has already stood up to Malfoy and Co at the Quidditch match, then Harry and Co in the common room. Dumbledore rewarded him for that. So Neville might be struggling with his course work, but he shows an ability to be strong when necessary. And that bit about his parents, how could he darkside after that? > This may seem a little far-fetched but I wonder what will happen to our hapless friend > Nothing is farfetched in these books. Rowling has done a good job setting up an environment where just about anything can happen without being too far out. > Mr. Boregard > (Hoping Neville can find the emotional strenth to endure) > I'm rooting for him, too Sirius Kase From brewpub44 at snet.net Sun Mar 17 22:49:00 2002 From: brewpub44 at snet.net (brewpub44) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:49:00 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat -- Confused? Or having fun? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36639 I have been thinking about Harry's sorting ceremony. Harry starts off by mumbling "not Slytherin", and the hat challenges him back. There have been some great theories stating that Harry has the qualities of both Slytherin & Gryffindor, or even of all four houses; or that Harry is somehow hte descendent of both S & G or even, again, all four houses. I think there are two other, more likely possibilities. One: the Hat is having some fun at Harry's expense. It depends on whether or not these magicked objects can have fun. We know the painting can, why not the hat? Why can't the hat have a little fun with the students? Two: it is the after-effects of LV's curse on Harry that confused the Hat. We know the after-effects gave Harry Parseltongue, why can't it imbue him with other side-effects that would confuse the hat? I find two intriguing. Perhaps in some future novel we'll have Harry being more adversely affected by these after-effects. We had a taste of that in CoS, maybe there's more on the way. Just a thought, A Barkeep in Diagon Alley. From westmerd at health.qld.gov.au Mon Mar 18 01:34:47 2002 From: westmerd at health.qld.gov.au (Debbie Westmerland) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:34:47 +1000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: memory charms not used on Dursleys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36640 The letter was from the ministry if you remember in PoA, when Fudge finds Harry on the bus. Harry was worried about getting expelled from school because he used magic and Fudge says it doesn't matter, Harry said to him about when he got the letter, Fudge said that the circumstances had changed but he didn't say anything about not sending a letter. I hope that made sense :) > > exposed to magic WITHOUT having their memory modified. (A couple > questions regarding this passage - what must Mafalda Hopkirk (Improper > Use of Magic Department) have been thinking to send an owl into a > muggle residence where it might be (and was) seen by muggles other > that the Dursleys? Very irresponsible, I should think. I doubt it really *was* from Ministry. It could have been a forged letter from a Malfoy. > And how about > the owl just dropping the letter on some starnger's head - not a very > secure method of delivering confidential correspondence. And I > thought the owls were supposed to be very disceerning in regards to > parcel delivery...) Pigwidgeon seemed to have a little trouble with it... but it might have been sent by i.e. Draco Malfoy, who told the Owl to do so... Debbie. From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Sun Mar 17 23:35:12 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 23:35:12 -0000 Subject: scar = alarm bell? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36641 I received the following query in my Lexicon mail: My question refers to a possible difference between the UK and US versions of GofF. In the scene very near the end where Dumbledore is trying to convince Fudge that V. is back, Fudge says "I"ve never heard of a curse scar acting as an alarm bell before". It has been raised, on the HPGalleries forum, that the UK version omits the word "never", which changes the whole meaning drastically. Can anyone shed some light on this? Is there a difference at this point in the books between the US and UK versions? My US edition does say "never." Steve Vander Ark The Harry Potter Lexicon http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon From Whirdy at aol.com Sun Mar 17 23:42:24 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 18:42:24 EST Subject: Minerva and Marvelo Message-ID: <9b.245c79f3.29c683e0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36642 Has there been any notice taken of the waverings of MM, Deputy Headmistress of Dear Old HSWW. She is cast as a thin-mouthed, stern, don't give and inch disciplinarian, with a soft heart (especially for HP). So how come she has to threaten Peeves with telling the Headmaster about the water bombs if he doesn't stop. Peeves ends up doing exactly what he wishes. Even HP handled Peeves better than that -- "Bloody Baron has his reasons" and, of course, Lupin turned the tables on Peeves altogether. There are a number of other situations in which MM waffles and wavers, rather than taking charge. Also, like most adults, she ignores important information based on who is telling it -- shades of GL. I am really not complaining, though, just commenting . It is nice to have characters act as irrationally and illogically as the people who are following their adventures. It just goes to show that the Potterverse ain't poifect! zoehooch writes: >>I've got a few nagging questions that I'd appreciate some opinions on. >>How does Tom Riddle know about his mother? How does he know she's a >>witch? How does he know his middle name is that of his maternal >>grandfather? >>Does he know any of this before he comes to Hogwarts or does he learn >>about it later? I also floated some Q's about LV a few weeks ago along the same lines and received silence. Are the DE's at work out there when we look into "that which should not be asked?" whirdy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skelkins at attbi.com Mon Mar 18 03:31:20 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 03:31:20 -0000 Subject: Neville, with or without the Canary Creams In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36643 In trying to account for a sudden change of focus in my Neville argument, I explained my shift in interpretive style by explaining that I had felt that David "might feel a bit more comfortable with a far more academic/analytical and far less popular/'fannish' (personalized, interactive, extrapolative, rebellious) approach to the text." David responded: > I have rather stacked the case against myself recently, haven't I? > But I only get uncomfortable when one approach is implied to be > superior to another. Okay. I'm sorry if I was unjustly stereotyping you there, BTW. I was just trying to keep the lines of communication open. Personally, I don't consider any interpretative style "better" than any other. I tend to view them primarily as tools of analysis: like all tools, they have different uses and are suited for different tasks. In a forum like this one, though, they also serve double-duty as the tools of interpersonal communication. And when it comes to communication, the most important first step, IMO, is to settle on a language that everybody involved can feel reasonably comfortable with -- or at least to make some effort to signal the shift if one plans on switching suddenly from one mode of discourse to a different one. In my last message, I stated my belief that my own interpretation of Neville's character is most likely *not* the author's own, adding my opinion that JKR does not really understand, or "get," people like Neville. I then, however, suggested that by revealing in GoF that Neville is not, in fact, nearly as emotionally transparent a character as he may have appeared in the previous three volumes, Rowling has left him in a somewhat indeterminate state. By signalling to the reader that Neville does indeed have a hidden internal life, but by not yet choosing to reveal what that internal life might actually be, she has effectively made him a "black box." Finally, I listed a number of places in the text where I felt there existed a strong possibility that the reader's initially-encouraged reading of the character might turn out not be the truthful one. I concluded with: > What *does* Neville think about? What *are* his real opinions? His > real motivations? We really just don't know. He's a highly opaque > character who has been masquerading for three books as an extremely > transparent one, and that makes you wonder (or it makes me wonder, > at any rate) what else might be going on there. David wrote: > I'm slightly lost. Doesn't that list of points suggest that JKR > *does* 'get' Neville? Not necessarily. To me, all that it really suggests is that JKR does indeed wish to introduce the reader to the notion that Neville *does* have a hidden inner life: that he thinks about things that he does not share with the protagonists, that he is capable of keeping very big secrets, that he is not at all as transparent a personality as he may at first have appeared. In short, I do think that GoF sets out to establish quite firmly in the reader's mind the understanding that with Neville, What You See isn't necessarily really All That's There. But that doesn't mean that what JKR will eventually establish really to *be* there is anything like what *I* imagine to be there. She's just shown us that he has a hidden inner life. What the nature of that inner life might be, however, is as yet undetermined. When it finally is determined, I will in truth be *very* surprised (although obviously also very pleased) if it should turn out to be anything like what my own personal identification with the character has led me to imagine it to be. > Or is that a third Neville, different from that of Hermione's > imagination *and* your identification? Well, in some ways I guess that he *is* a kind of Third Neville! The post-GoF Neville is Indeterminate Neville: because the author has chosen to leave him in a highly indeterminate state at this point in the narrative, until Book Five comes out it remains possible for him to be simultaneously the Neville of Hermione's imagination *and* the Neville of my own identification, thus allowing me to maintain my favored reading without running into any strong canonical contradictions. Once the author chooses to open that box, though, then Indeterminate Neville will likely collapse, and I'll just be stuck with JKR's Neville...whoever *he* should turn out to be. > Or are you just unconvinced by your own argument? There are in fact two separate arguments here: one of possibility; and one of probability, or plausibility. I certainly think that the argument of possibility holds firm. The possibility *does* exist that the author intends to do something that I will personally find highly enjoyable -- compelling, convincing, satisfying, what have you -- with Neville. The character is in an indeterminate state at this point in the narrative; he could therefore still be taken in a direction that I would enjoy. But do I think it *probable* that JKR's intentions towards the character are what I would prefer for them to be? No. Quite frankly, I don't. I consider it highly unlikely. > David, now dreaming about the kitchen table in the Elkins household The kitchen table? Oh! You mean that thing in the kitchen? The thing that's covered with all of those stacks of books, and the CDs, and the art supplies, and the polyhedral dice, and the "To Do" lists, and the potted Christmas Cactus that we meant to find another place for sometime last year, and all of those unopened envelopes marked: "Dated Material -- Open IMMEDIATELY?" Yeah, I kind of know what you mean. Sometimes I have dreams about that thing too. -- Elkins, who thinks that she ought to get some sort of special prize for refraining from ever once referring explicitly to that #%&@ feline of Mr. S. in the main body of this message. From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Mon Mar 18 21:57:41 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:57:41 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat -- Confused? Or having fun? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36644 brewpub44 wrote: > I have been thinking about Harry's sorting ceremony. Harry starts > off by mumbling "not Slytherin", and the hat challenges him back. I think the Hat may be *testing* him. I have this theory that the Hat is actively intervening in the Slytherin - Gryffindor conflict, on Grfiindor's side (it was Gryffindor's hat, after all.) The Hat wants to make sure that Harry can be trusted to represent Gryffindor. Judy From aiz24 at hotmail.com Mon Mar 18 21:59:29 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:59:29 -0000 Subject: Apologies - Wands for life? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36645 We apologize for the preceding apology. Oops, mixing up my fandoms again. Cindy, on a rampage, claimed: >Sirius never apologizes to Snape, Ron or Lupin. I had a good rant going, but you've since recalled the very moving apology to Lupin ("Forgive me" is way tougher to say than "I apologize," "I'm sorry," or "I screwed up"). I think he's made it quite clear enough that he is apologizing to Ron, also. He's very concerned about his leg, asks after him when he ought to be getting the hell away from the tower (one of my favorite Sirius moments), and a week later gives him an owl "as it's my fault he no longer has a rat." Snape, no, I don't think we're going to see an apology to Snape anytime soon. I agree with J that the apology between Sirius and Remus is necessary. However understandable their suspicions were (especially Remus's, since Sirius was caught red-handed, for crying out loud), they suspected each other of the most horrible crimes. I can't imagine them going forward without asking each other's forgiveness. The discomfort I feel with that scene is not that the apologies were unnecessary, but that they were so cursory. BTW, I wouldn't call Lupin's "I'm sorry about your broomstick" an apology (nor, of course, is one called for). "Sorry" means two things, and when used as an expression of condolence it isn't an apology at all. David wrote: >We don't know for sure > what passed between Lupin and Dumbledore on the morning he left, but > there is an awkwardness about Lupin insisting on taking his own bags > that suggests they still haven't really cleared the air. I agree--I find that scene painful. It doesn't tell us whether anyone apologized to anyone else. I figure as I read it that Lupin apologized abjectly to Dumbledore earlier that morning; this doesn't clear the air to the point of normalizing relations, however. "Normal" would mean allowing Dumbledore to see him out; "just told Dumbledore I'd lied to him for years, and damn it, didn't even get to say it clean, Sirius had already told him" requires Lupin to carefully refuse to impose on him any further. I would've felt the same way. But I know it's astonishing to hear that I relate to Lupin. > Am I the only person who dislikes the expression 'suck it up'? No. Leon wrote: > No, the wand chooses the wizard, and it's for life. How do we know it's for life? The only person we know to possess the same wand for many years is Voldemort, and we don't know that the Fawkes wand was his first; he could have bought it shortly before killing Lily and James. Not *too* shortly, IMO--I think Ollivander's a thoroughgoing good guy and wouldn't have sold it to him once he'd risen to power. But it could easily be thirty years after he began at Hogwarts. Amy Z still Miss Use of Muggle Artifacts, thank you very much, until the 2002 pageant* *The MUMA Pageant is held on Perkins's birthday every year ------------------------------------------------------------- "What's this?" he asked Aunt Petunia. Her lips tightened as they always did if he dared to ask a question. "Your new school uniform," she said. Harry looked in the bowl again. "Oh," he said, "I didn't realize it had to be so wet." -HP and the Philosopher's Stone ------------------------------------------------------------- From rshuson80 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 18 22:01:35 2002 From: rshuson80 at yahoo.com (nyarth_meow) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 22:01:35 -0000 Subject: Minerva and Marvelo In-Reply-To: <9b.245c79f3.29c683e0@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36646 I was wondering the other day if Minerva McGonagall was a contempory of Tom Riddle's at Hogwarts, and whether this might be relevant. I've heard JKR put her age at both "a spritely 70" and "65", which suggests maybe not, as the author herself doesn't consider M's age important enough to even be fixed. *However* Assuming McGonagall is around 65, and the chamber of secrets was opened about 50 years ago when Tom Riddle was 15... They would have been at Hogwarts at the same time, even if not in the same year. Maybe Minerva has a more important role than we might imagine in future books? Nyarth From john at walton.vu Mon Mar 18 22:09:14 2002 From: john at walton.vu (johnwaltonvu) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 22:09:14 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Welcome back to HPforGrownups! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36647 Well, folks, that's a relief. Welcome back to HPforGrownups. It looks like everything is in order over here and at the other lists which were *ahem* out of order for a day or so. A massive thank you to the techies at YahooGroups who managed to rescue our groups intact. We all certainly appreciate it. So, folks...post away! (As some of you are doing already!) We might have some information for you soon -- we're still investigating the people who did this...we know who they are, and are considering our options now. Hooray! Amy, Catherine, Cindy, John, Kelley, Neil & Penny The Very Happy HPFGU Moderator Team From mercia at ireland.com Mon Mar 18 22:15:58 2002 From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 22:15:58 -0000 Subject: scar = alarm bell? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36648 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hp_lexicon" wrote: > I received the following query in my Lexicon mail: > > My question refers to a possible difference between > the UK and US versions of GofF. In the scene very > near the end where Dumbledore is trying to convince > Fudge that V. is back, Fudge says "I"ve never heard > of a curse scar acting as an alarm bell before". > It has been raised, on the HPGalleries forum, that > the UK version omits the word "never", which changes > the whole meaning drastically. > > Can anyone shed some light on this? Is there a difference at this > point in the books between the US and UK versions? My US edition > does say "never." > > I have the UK first edition which does omit the word 'never' at that point. However I have assumed since the first reading that it was a mistake and a careless bit of proof reading for the intention is quite clearly for Fudge to say that a scar can't act as an alarm bell. I simply added the word never to my text and am interested to hear that it has been added to the US edition. Incidently my edition is also the one that has the shadow of James emerging first from Voldemort's wand and saying 'Your mother is coming - she wants to see you.' Since Lily was killed after James this is also a mistake and I understand has been corrected in subsequent editions. I assume the word 'never' would also have been added to Fudge's speech. Mercia From christi0469 at hotmail.com Mon Mar 18 23:05:41 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 23:05:41 -0000 Subject: scar = alarm bell? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36649 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "meglet2" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hp_lexicon" wrote: > > I received the following query in my Lexicon mail: > > > > My question refers to a possible difference between > > the UK and US versions of GofF. In the scene very > > near the end where Dumbledore is trying to convince > > Fudge that V. is back, Fudge says "I"ve never heard > > of a curse scar acting as an alarm bell before". > > > > > > It has been raised, on the HPGalleries forum, that > > the UK version omits the word "never", which changes > > the whole meaning drastically. Mercia replied, > > Can anyone shed some light on this? Is there a difference at this > > point in the books between the US and UK versions? My US edition > > does say "never." > I have the UK first edition which does omit the word 'never' at that > point. However I have assumed since the first reading that it was a > mistake and a careless bit of proof reading for the intention is > quite clearly for Fudge to say that a scar can't act as an alarm > bell. I simply added the word never to my text and am interested to > hear that it has been added to the US edition. Incidently my edition > is also the one that has the shadow of James emerging first from > Voldemort's wand and saying 'Your mother is coming - she wants to > see you.' Since Lily was killed after James this is also a mistake > and I understand has been corrected in subsequent editions. I assume > the word 'never' would also have been added to Fudge's speech. > I have a very recent paperback UK copy of GoF. The wand order issue is corrected (Lily comes out before James and says 'Your father is coming...), but the 'never' is still omitted from Fudge's scar comment. Curiouser and curiouser... Christi From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Mar 19 00:03:46 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 00:03:46 -0000 Subject: Marvolo In-Reply-To: <9b.245c79f3.29c683e0@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36650 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Whirdy at a... wrote: t! > > zoehooch writes: > >>I've got a few nagging questions that I'd appreciate some opinions on. How does Tom Riddle know about his mother? How does he know she's a witch? How does he know his middle name is that of his maternal grandfather? > >>Does he know any of this before he comes to Hogwarts or does he learn about it later? > > I also floated some Q's about LV a few weeks ago along the same lines and received silence. Are the DE's at work out there when we look into "that which should not be asked?" Orphanages at that time changed the names of infants that were brought to them. My pet theory is, Tom had no idea of his real name till the Hogwarts owl showed up. Once he'd learned enough magic, it would be no problem to break into the orphanage files and learn the Muggle side of the story. As for the wizard side, Slytherin might have left all sorts of magical treasures in the Chamber to serve the heir. Perhaps there was something like a way of accessing that Wizard Internet Jo has been dropping hints about. Said treasures would have been removed, perhaps to that compartment under the Malfoy drawing room floor, before Harry arrived. Pippin From mdemeran at hotmail.com Tue Mar 19 00:14:15 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (Meg Demeranville) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 18:14:15 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] wand order References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36651 Christi said: I have a very recent paperback UK copy of GoF. The wand order issue is corrected (Lily comes out before James and says 'Your father is coming...), but the 'never' is still omitted from Fudge's scar comment. Curiouser and curiouser... I have a very recent US copy of GoF. The word never is in the scar comment but the wand order is incorrect (James comes out first). Did I just manage to pick up an old copy or does anyone else with a recent US copy have the same thing? I am so extremely confused. Meg [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From seusilva at uol.com.br Mon Mar 18 22:47:48 2002 From: seusilva at uol.com.br (T.S.Silva) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 19:47:48 -0300 Subject: Vold.vs. Dementors / Fudge / Flitwick Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020318153807.00a15610@seusilva@pop3.uol.com.br> No: HPFGUIDX 36652 Greetings all. I have three questions, and would be interested in any theories... (i) Can a dementor's kiss destroy Voldemort? (ii) Fudge's skepticism in GoF 36 (The Parting of The Ways) isn't in accord with PoA, chp.10: "But what do you think he's broken out to do?" said Madam Rosmerta. "Good gracious, Minister, he isn't trying to rejoin You-Know-Who, is he?" "I daresay that is his -- er -- eventual plan," said Fudge evasively. "But we hope to catch Black long before that. I must say, You-Know-Who alone and friendless is one thing... but give him back his most devoted servant, and I shudder to think how quickly he'll rise again...." What is the reason of his "unbelief" in GoF 36? What his name suggests? (iii) Is there any evidence that Flitwick is a member of the "old gang"? He seems to be a good guy; and remember CoS, chp.11 (The Dueling Club): "I wonder who'll be teaching us?" said Hermione as they edged into the chattering crowd. "Someone told me Flitwick was a dueling champion when he was young - maybe it'll be him." From huntleyl at mssm.org Tue Mar 19 01:47:54 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 20:47:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Vold.vs. Dementors / Fudge / Flitwick References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020318153807.00a15610@seusilva@pop3.uol.com.br> Message-ID: <015a01c1cee8$169e6b60$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 36653 T.S. Silva inquires: >(i) Can a dementor's kiss destroy Voldemort? This is an interesting question, as it asks a lot of peripheral ones. For instance, is Voldemort still in possession of an undamaged, unaltered soul? If so, would it cost him much to lose it? In canon, the parallels between Voldie an the average soul-sucker are pretty numerous. For example, they both have the bodies of distorted humans. Furthermore, they are both terrifying creatures, seemingly incapable of the gentler human emotions, and both have the ability to cause violent physical reactions in Harry. So, although it is quite obvious, that, for all his hare-brained scheming, V. is not the blubbering, mindless lunatic that Crouch Jr. becomes after losing his soul, I wonder, during his quest for immortality, if Voldie ever exchanged his soul for something less...troublesome. Perhaps, he somehow altered/exchanged his soul for whatever survived the rebounding of the A.K. curse. But what of the effect of using Harry's blood in his resurrection spell? In PS/SS, Dumbledore tells Harry that Voldie/Quirrel cannot touch him [Harry] because, "Your mother died to save you [blah, blah, blah about love]..Quirrel [...] sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason." This makes it sound that as if whatever V. has become cannot stand the touch of Harry because of the goodness of his mother's love. However, after using Harry's blood for his little concoction, V. *can* touch him, so maybe he's lost whatever part of him couldn't stand Harry's touch -- the part that kept him "alive" after the A.K. curse. This, in my opinion, is an excellent explanation for Dumbledore's infamous gleam and why it might be that V. has managed to disadvantage himself be using Harry's blood. mm..this theory probably isn't anything new -- just my rambling thought processes. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nesbitaa at purdue.edu Tue Mar 19 02:36:10 2002 From: nesbitaa at purdue.edu (oboakk) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 02:36:10 -0000 Subject: wand order In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36654 Meg wrote: > I have a very recent US copy of GoF. The word never is in the scar comment but the wand order is incorrect (James comes out first). Did I just manage to pick up an old copy or does anyone else with a recent US copy have the same thing? > I am so extremely confused. > I also have a fairly new US copy and it has the same 'error'. I read somewhere (I thought it was in the HP Lexicon, but I can't seem to find it right now), that the Lily/James order was 'corrected' and then 're-corrected' in later editions so that James does come out first. JKR supposedly said that James did die first, but the order in the book is correct. The author of this article theorized that maybe something about Harry, e.g. his desire to see his father, caused the wand order to be reversed. Did anyone else read this? If so, do you remember where the information was? I know I'm just not making this up....I hope. Abby From kendra_grant at fantasysales.net Tue Mar 19 01:45:02 2002 From: kendra_grant at fantasysales.net (Kendra Grant-Bingham) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 20:45:02 -0500 Subject: Missing "never" In-Reply-To: <1016498414.2906.63186.m3@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020318204120.00a69c30@mail.fantasysales.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36655 At 12:40 AM 3/19/2002 +0000, you wrote: >~~~~~I have a very recent US copy of GoF. The word never is in the scar >comment but the wand order is incorrect (James comes out first). Did I >just manage to pick up an old copy or does anyone else with a recent US >copy have the same thing? >I am so extremely confused.~~~~~ I have a very recent book.....copyright 2000.....the wand order is off....James comes out first......and the word "never" is in that comment. Exactly how is that comment written in the UK version? I'm a little confused, too. Does it make it seem as if Fudge is saying that he HAS heard of a curse scar being an alarm bell? --- Kendra Grant-Bingham ~~~~~Phoenix Moonshadow Wych~~~~~ "Gryffindor House ...where Friendship and Bravery count." From christi0469 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 19 03:36:45 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 03:36:45 -0000 Subject: Missing "never" In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20020318204120.00a69c30@mail.fantasysales.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36656 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kendra Grant-Bingham wrote: > At 12:40 AM 3/19/2002 +0000, you wrote: > >~~~~~I have a very recent US copy of GoF. The word never is in the scar > >comment but the wand order is incorrect (James comes out first). Did I > >just manage to pick up an old copy or does anyone else with a recent US > >copy have the same thing? > >I am so extremely confused.~~~~~ > > Kendra Grant-Bingham replied, > > I have a very recent book.....copyright 2000.....the wand order is > off....James comes out first......and the word "never" is in that comment. > Exactly how is that comment written in the UK version? I'm a little > confused, too. Does it make it seem as if Fudge is saying that he HAS heard > of a curse scar being an alarm bell? My relatively new (it was an X-mas gift) US hardbound copy of GoF has Lily coming out of the wand first and has Fudge saying "...I've never heard of a curse car acting as an alarm bell.." It seems as if the additions differ by UK/US editions, edition number, and HB/PB. What a mess. How are we supposed to make complicated theories when the editions very so much? The inclusion or omision of the word never radically changes the meaning of a passage, and the order that Lily and James come out of the wand would seem to be very important. ARGH!!! Christi From uncmark at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 04:22:14 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 04:22:14 -0000 Subject: Concern for Neville In-Reply-To: <20020317013833.15007.qmail@web14911.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36657 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., > --- Mr_Boregard wrote: > > We know that Harry Ron and Hermione are a set trio > and the best of friends. We also know that Neville is > often mixed up with the trio and often ends up > helping them out in one way or another. And I am scared that Neville will become the fourth member of the group...(the weakest member emotionally and skill wise). > > > > The question I pose is... is it possible that > Neville will be lured to the darkside like Pettigrew > before him? It seems to me that there is a possible parallel > between Neville and Pettigrew.> Sirius Kase wrote: > I think that Rowling is intentionally setting up > parallels between the generations. And Neville would > be the Pettigrew of this group. That doesn't mean > that history must repeat itself. Neville seems to be > made of tougher stuff than Pettigrew. He has already > stood up to Malfoy and Co at the Quidditch match, then > Harry and Co in the common room. Dumbledore rewarded > him for that. So Neville might be struggling with his > course work, but he shows an ability to be strong when > necessary. And that bit about his parents, how could > he darkside after that? Quote from Dumbledore ChoS Ch. 18 "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." Pettigrew is shown as the weak tag-along of the trio, but how weak was he? One of a trio of unregistered Anamagi (only 7 registered in a century), skilled in magical combat (enough to get the drop on Sirius twice), extremely devious (able to fake his death and hide from the MoM and LV for 12 years.) Neville, on the other hand, clumsy. absent-minded, and a solid friend. MANY believe Neville's absentmindedness is due to a memory charm to help him survive the trauma of seeing his parents tortured. Almost everyone I've talked to believe that there is MUCH more to Neville than we think. The only parallel of Peter/Neville was in Harry's dreams when he imagined an evil Sirius killing an innocent Peter. Harry was completely wrong about Sirius and Peter. I think he was equally wrong about Neville. Harry admitted being tempted by the sorting hat 'to be great in Slytherin' but chose Gryffyndor. Considering what we've seen of Neville (fightingGoyle when he knew he would lose, standing up the HRH when they tried to sneak out of the tower and getting body-bound, and asking out Hermione before Ron or Harry got up courage to ask a girl out) I cannot picture himself being tempted to the dark EVER! Picture Neville in Peter's place, "He was taking over everywhere! What was there to be gained by refusing him... You don't understand! He would have killed me!" Neville would have gladly refused, dying rather than betray his friends. Uncmark From witchwanda2002 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 04:32:41 2002 From: witchwanda2002 at yahoo.com (Wanda Mallett) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 20:32:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: A Big Thank You to All Message-ID: <20020319043241.63767.qmail@web13706.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36658 To Amy, Catherine, Cindy, John, Kelley, Neil & Penny The Very Happy HPFGU Moderator Team and all the Elves helping you too, A Very Big Thank You! You have made all of us happy that our favorite groups are up and running! Now our lives can have our favorite posts in our email box over-flowing with HPFGU's posts! Especially mine, making my muggle husband jealous because I get more email than he does! You all deserve tons of toasts of butterbeer and lots of chocolate frogs and all that great fun stuff to eat! You all deserve tons of happy owls from all of us! You all take care and enjoy all the posts coming your way! Schnoogles to all of you, Wanda the Witch of Revere,Massachusetts and Her very Merry Band of Muggles 100% --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skelkins at attbi.com Tue Mar 19 04:43:29 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 04:43:29 -0000 Subject: Do people like SYCOPHANTS? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36659 Well, I guess you all probably know already how I'm bound to respond to Eileen's questions about the sycophant characters, right? But I'm going to answer them anyway. Eileen wrote: > Sycophants make great characters at point. Note Grima Wormtongue > and Peter Pettigrew. But do people actually like them? Do you ever > feel sympathetic with a sycophant? Yes. I always identify with weakness -- weakness is really the one characteristic that unifies all of those character types included under the SYCOPHANTS banner -- and the minions are almost always my favorite characters. Part of the reason for this, I suppose, is pure sympathy for the underdog. Head Villains very rarely win in the end, it's true, but at least until they finally get what's coming to them, they *do* get to be powerful. (The story wouldn't be very satisfying if they didn't.) They may be doomed to failure within the wider scope of the narrative, but until the end of the story, they get to kill and bully and torment and otherwise lord it over everyone who crosses their path. And because it's genre convention that proper villains ought to be charismatic, they often get really snappy dialogue, as well. Their minions, on the other hand, don't even get that much. Not only are they doomed to failure, they're also subject people even while their own side is winning. And not only that, but even the authorial voice often doesn't seem to care for them! If they're not cannon fodder, pure and simple, then they're secondary villains that the reader is supposed to roundly despise: they hardly ever get any cool lines of dialogue, they rarely have a decent dress sense, they're almost never good-looking, and their dignity is stripped from them as a matter of course. Minions just get no respect or sympathy from anyone: they're despised by their enemies and their evil overlords alike. They're losers, through and through. And of course that garners my sympathy! I mean, what sort of person *doesn't* instinctively root for the underdog? > When you read the Shrieking Shack scene for the first time, were > you feeling it more from Sirius/Lupin's angry POV or Pettigrew's > desperately afraid POV? This is very similar to one of the questions proposed for discussion at the end of the summary of Chapter Nineteen of PoA, back when this list was still doing weekly chapter-by-chapter discussions of the books. The question then, IIRC, was something along the lines of: "Did you feel any sympathy for Pettigrew?" And I have to admit that I was *shocked* to read the responses. I kept scrolling through the messages, reading "no," "no," "absolutely not," "are you kidding me?" and the like, over and over and over again, and my jaw was just dropping to the floor. I honestly could not believe what I was seeing. > Well, it might be something strange in me but I was seeing it from > the second POV. I guess I must share your strangeness then, because for me, if there's one person in the scene in fear for his life, then that's the person who *always* gets the first claim on my sympathy. It doesn't matter who it is or what he's done: the desire not to die is just so compelling, so universal, so utterly *fundamental* that it garners sympathy and identification as a matter of simple human default -- very much as physical pain does. I could no more have withheld identification from Pettigrew in Shrieking Shack than I could have withheld it from Harry in the graveyard at the end of GoF (to take an example in rather striking contrast when it comes to the character's actual *behavior* in the face of imminent death). And also, really, identification with Pettigrew in Shrieking Shack is just so very *easy,* isn't it? I mean, it's a total no-brainer. There's absolutely nothing alien about his situation except for its sordid and excessive details. Afraid of death? Yup. Been there. (Hell, I *live* there.) Hopelessly overpowered by those around you? Yeah, I've been there, too. Anyone who didn't spring fully-grown from their father's *skull* has been there. Know perfectly well that you've done something wrong, and that you have absolutely no real excuse for it? Well, yeah, I've been there as well. Hasn't everyone been there, at least once in their life? I sympathized very deeply with Sirius and Remus, of course, but I can't say that I was really identifying with either of them in the same way. I wasn't feeling their rage. What I was feeling in regard to them was pity, mixed with a very deep concern. I was fearful for them and worried about them, and I wanted to protect them from themselves -- which I suppose placed my reader identification far closer to one with Harry in that scene. On a related note, Eileen also asked: > BTW, did you feel a twinge of sympathy for Pettigrew when he said > the Dark Lord forced him to betray the Potters? I did (at least the > first time around) and Lupin's reaction still doesn't feel good for > me. Hmmm. Lupin's reaction? Do you mean his charming "You should have realized if Voldemort didn't kill you, we would?" Or were you thinking more of Sirius' "you should have died rather than betray your friends" statement? (Or...no. No, excuse me. What I really *meant* to say, of course, was Sirius' "YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED RATHER THAN BETRAY YOUR FRIENDS" statement. So sorry.) That line of Sirius' has never made me feel too good either. I mean... I mean, of course we all like to *believe* that we'd die rather than betray our friends, don't we? But...well...I mean... > I mean, "Who doesn't crack every once and a while?" Yes! Exactly. But actually, you know, the situation wasn't really like that at *all!* So we don't have to worry about it any more. Right? > Now, of course, it looks like Pettigrew's guilty as sin. Right. Phew! What a relief *that* is! Weaklings all across the *globe* were just swooning with gratitude when JKR made *that* authorial decision, I can tell you. Cindy, on the other hand, is not Weak, but Tough. She therefore Has No Sympathy: > My goodness! What's going on here? Are you guys starting to -- > well, there's just no gentle way to say it -- go *Soft* on me? What > am I hearing? Sympathy for Pettigrew? Doubt about Crouch Jr.'s > guilt? What next ? Tom Riddle was just misunderstood? Er...not to quibble, but haven't we *always* been "Soft?" I mean, Eileen and I have always been the Bleeding Heart Sycophants around here, haven't we? Neither of us has ever made the slightest claim to Toughness. So I don't really know whether it's even *possible* for us to "go" Soft. We started out that way. But as to Tom Riddle, of *course* he was misunderstood! He was terribly misunderstood. After all, back in his student days, it seems that just about everyone but Dumbledore thought that he was a really nice guy. I'd call that a case of being fairly well misunderstood. The poor dear. > No, I don't think I can sign on for the Pity Party that seems to be > forming here. Pettigrew was Evil. Evil, evil and really evil. I'm with Eileen here. Yeah, Pettigrew's a rotter. He's seriously bad news. But people don't have to be *good* to get my pity; they just have to be wretched and miserable and helpless and trapped. And Pettigrew's certainly all of those things. In fact, I pity Pettigrew far more than I would a truly admirable person, because he doesn't even have the solace of knowing himself to be essentially blameless to see him through. He knows that he's guilty, he knows that he's got no one but himself to blame for his situation, and he knows that even though his behavior is sickening, he's still not going to change it. And yeah, I really do pity people like that. > You know why I'm not cutting Pettigrew or Crouch Jr. a break? > Because neither Pettigrew nor Crouch Jr. is *sorry*. Crouch Jr. indeed shows no signs of remorse for anything he has done anywhere in GoF, unless one counts his evident fatigue, twitchiness, and possible absent-mindedness the morning after his father's murder. And even if one *does* choose to interpret these as signs of remorse, he would seem to have quashed those nasty little feelings of qualm quite adequately by the time he reaches his "mad, am I?" monologue at the end of the book. Pettigrew, though? Oh, I think it's quite clear that Pettigrew feels remorse. What he *doesn't* do is to allow that sense of remorse to override his sense of self-preservation, and thus to do anything to actually atone for his wrong-doings. Instead, he just falls into self-loathing. Now, self-loathing isn't at all a *useful* response to remorse, it is true. It does absolutely nothing to mitigate the original offense, it doesn't make you feel any better -- in fact, it does absolutely nothing beneficial for anyone. But it's still certainly evidence of remorse. > Pettigrew never expresses any regret at all in the Shrieking Shack. That all rather depends on how you interpret his breaking down at the end of the scene, doesn't it? I mean, I suppose that you could read his bursting into tears there as purely manipulative behavior: his one desperate last-ditch attempt to inspire mercy. You could view it as a manifestation of simple terror. Or you could view it as indicative of the guilty despair of remorse. I read it as a blend of all three, myself. Back to Eileen: > Now, I can take the pain given to weaker characters, and, being a > FEATHERBOA, enjoy it, but my heart still goes out to every > miserable fictional character that comes along. > Is this wide-spread phenomenon? Or are we only a few whose supply > of pity is infinite? We may be few, Eileen, but at least it's not just the two of us anymore. Jamie actually purchased a *SYCOPHANTS badge!* She did so off-list, admittedly (that shame factor is just *so* hard to combat, isn't it?), but she did say that it would be okay if I shared the news with everyone. And I also just noticed this, from A Goldfeesh: > A Goldfeesh -who wonders at the Sorting Hat putting her in > Slytherin, not being too ambitious or cunning and so likely > destined to be a lowly sycophant... SYCOPHANTS membership packet, Goldfeesh? Eileen: > I have this tendency to get along well with sycophants, neurotics > and the rest. One of my first fanfics was about how Gollum survived > Mt. Doom and Merry and Pippin brought him back to the Shire and > reformed him by taking him swimming and on picnics. (I was very > young.) Oh my God. Eileen, that is so *cute!* But how about Grima? No redemption scenario for poor old Grima Wormtongue, the patron saint of sycophants? > Grima Wormtongue, the patron saint of sycophants! But he didn't > survive, Elkins, he didn't survive. Even Frodo couldn't save him. > Eileen goes off polishing her SYCOPHANT badge sadly. No. He didn't survive. But then, you know, if the sycophants were really in the habit of *surviving* their stories, then I highly doubt that we'd feel such an overwhelming desire to champion them. -- Elkins, polishing up her own SYCOPHANTS badge as she wanders down to the beach to see how the Fourth Man kayak is bearing up under the pressure of its recent population explosion. From siriuskase at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 04:12:33 2002 From: siriuskase at yahoo.com (siriuskase) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 04:12:33 -0000 Subject: Missing "never" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36660 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "christi0469" wrote: > It seems as if the additions differ by UK/US editions, edition > number, and HB/PB. What a mess. How are we supposed to make > complicated theories when the editions very so much? The inclusion > or omision of the word never radically changes the meaning of a > passage, and the order that Lily and James come out of the wand > would seem to be very important. ARGH!!! > > Christi Just make a new complicated theory that deals with the pattern of errors that differ by printing plant, publisher, and printing, errors that get fixed and later apparently unfixed. At one point, I tried to do a little research into the CoS last remaining ancestor/descendent problem. The word used seemed to differ in the same edition depending on which state the printing plant was in. Then, it got fixed, then it was back to being ancestor again. Then I gave up because I got tired of looking at every CoS I happened to run across. The interesting thing about the ancestor problem is that it didn't get much publicity in the press, wheras the wand error problem has several news articles on it. This current thread is the first I've heard of the missing 'never' problem. To document these things properly, we need to keep track of whether it is a UK or US edition, which edition, which printing, and which printing plant. If anyone is serious about this, we could start a database and have each member enter the data for each book they can get there hands on. Sirius Kase From christi0469 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 19 04:51:36 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 04:51:36 -0000 Subject: Concern for Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36661 Snipped from a post by Uncmark, > The only parallel of Peter/Neville was in Harry's dreams when he > imagined an evil Sirius killing an innocent Peter. Harry was > completely wrong about Sirius and Peter. I think he was equally wrong > about Neville. > > Harry admitted being tempted by the sorting hat 'to be great in > Slytherin' but chose Gryffyndor. Considering what we've seen of > Neville (fightingGoyle when he knew he would lose, standing up the > HRH when they tried to sneak out of the tower and getting body- bound, > and asking out Hermione before Ron or Harry got up courage to ask a > girl out) I cannot picture himself being tempted to the dark EVER! > > Picture Neville in Peter's place, "He was taking over everywhere! > What was there to be gained by refusing him... You don't understand! > He would have killed me!" Neville would have gladly refused, dying > rather than betray his friends. My intuition leads me to believe that JKR intentionally set up a parallel between Neville and Peter, and I think she is going to use this parallel to highlight the importance of choice. To show Neville in Peter's light and then have him choose to be loyal to H/R/H would be a powerfull example of choice over circumstances. She could put tempt Neville with whatever tempted Peter. There also seems to be paralllels between Ron/Sirius and Malfoy/Snape, and parallels may develop between Hermione/Lupin and Ginny/Lily. This does not mean that all or any of the characters from Harry's generation will make the same decisions as those of James'. Consider the parallels between Harry and Tom Riddle. Would Harry's choices not to be like T.R. be nearly as poignant if these similarities did not exist? On a different note, I don't think that the Sorting Hat's offer to put Harry in Slytherin tempted Harry much at all. I wonder if the Sorting Hat gave Tom Riddle a choice? How many people have been offered a choice? Christi From degroote at altavista.com Tue Mar 19 04:57:52 2002 From: degroote at altavista.com (Vicky DeGroote) Date: 18 Mar 2002 20:57:52 -0800 Subject: Tom Jr. learning family history/publication question Message-ID: <20020319045752.13816.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36662 An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From catlady at wicca.net Tue Mar 19 06:57:16 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:57:16 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat / MoM Salaries / SnapeSnapeSnape / QWC / Animagi / Shrieki Shack Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36663 Susan P. wrote: > One other quick question - is the Sorting Hat others have mentioned > the one on the main WB page for the movie, or is there another one > somewhere? Here are URLs of three: http://hogwarts.7dragons.net/ http://www.harrypotterfansonline.com/SortingCap.htm http://www.angelfire.com/tx5/worldofmagic/ Christi wrote: > On a different note, I don't think that the Sorting Hat's offer to > put Harry in Slytherin tempted Harry much at all. I wonder if the > Sorting Hat gave Tom Riddle a choice? How many people have been > offered a choice? I don't know whether the hat offered anyone a choice, but it took a long time with some people: PS/SS: "The hat took a long time to decide with Neville." "Finnigan, Seamus," the sandy-haired boy next to Harry in the line, sat on the stool for almost a whole minute before the hat declared him a Gryffindor." I think that it was arguing with Neville, refusing to accept his assertion that he MUST belong in Hufflepuff not Gryffindor. I wonder what's up with Seamus? Probably something related to the unique symbol beside his name on JKR's chart. Chart URL: http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/hpforgrownups/vwp?.dir=/Harry+Pot ter+%26+Me&.dnm=schoollist3.jpg&.src=gr&.view=t&.hires=t Brewpub Barkeep wrote: > I have been thinking about Harry's sorting ceremony. Harry starts > off by mumbling "not Slytherin", and the hat challenges him back. > (snip) the Hat is having some fun at Harry's expense. It depends on > whether or not these magicked objects can have fun. We know the > painting can, why not the hat? Why can't the hat have a little fun > with the students? I agree. But the Hat said in CoS: "But I stand by what I said before" - Harry's heart leapt - "you would have done well in Slytherin -" and Dumbledore told Harry that Harry had qualities that Slytherin valued in his students but "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities" rather than telling Harry that the Hat was just joking him. Athena wrote: << Moreover, how does the Ministry of Magic privide salaries for its employees? Are they supported by wizardry taxes? If so, would that be something as pedestrian as sales taxes at the Three Broomsticks and Honeydukes? Or should we just give this a rest because the subject is just too damned boring and doesn't drive the plot one whit? >> I have a theory that the wizarding government has an annual income from the Muggle world, from which it pays all its expenses. It might be that Muggle governments pay 'protection money' to the wizards, paying them not to attack us. Less shocking possibilities are that we pay them to use their magic to protect us from magical monsters or from asteroids hitting the Earth, or that we pay them royalties on valuable patents that they own. Another possibility is that wizard money DOES grow on trees -- very rare and very carefully guarded trees! Eloise wrote: > So DEs *feel* their own Mark burning or tingling or something when > they're in the presence of another DE so that they know they're in > safe company. Perhaps that's why Snape suddenly clutches at his arm > during the pyjama party: it's not just guilt, or whatever emotion > you want to ascribe to him at that point; Moody's presence and > particularly his thoughts about Snape as DE are actually affecting > the Mark. IIRC someone previously speculated that Aurors had a Dark Mark Detector, that Fake Moody had stolen Real Moody's Dark Mark Detector (along with his Eye), and that that is what set off Snape's Mark. If it were indeed Fake Moody's Mark that set off Snape's Mark, Snape might have thought it was Moody's Dark Mark Detector that had done so ... even if there were no Dark Mark Detector except in rumors spread by panicky Death Eaters. Tabouli wrote: > Why did he study up on curses so obsessively? To me, this suggests > a resentful, damaged child who feels powerless and has secretly > been plotting revenge on those who damaged him (which, given his > mistrustful nature, could well have been his parents or guardians). > This also fits in with someone who bullies his students: it's not > at *all* common for those bullied by those in authority over them > to become bullies towards those over whom *they* have authority > later in life. *I* think his parents were almost completely uninterested in him. In my theory, they had a deep interest in Dark Arts and a library that had been accumulating for nearly a thousand years (live in the same house for a thousand years and books just PILE UP); they had no interest in children, but bore one son to carry on the family name, whom they promptly handed over to a nanny. When he was four, they fired the nanny for being too soft on him and hired a strict governess instead. The only times they appeared to approve of him was when they found him studying books of magic and learning still more curses. HIs home life was coldness (except that first bit with the nanny) but not bullying. His resentment was not directed against his parents, but rather against primary school classmates (who hated him first for lacking social skills and second for getting good grades) and teachers (who sided with the classmates). Elementary school children do a lot of physical violence (as well as verbal violence) against people they dislike. I can imagine little kid Severus looking forward with nervous eagerness to starting Hogwarts, a new school with (mostly) new people, some of them his intellectual equals, and a chance to start over on a new foot with people who didn't hate him yet... and having made enemies before the Hogwarts Express had arrived! Marina Rusalka wrote: > I doubt [Snape] he would react favorably to an apology from Harry, > or from Sirius, or from anyone else he thinks has wronged him. I think Snape would LOVE to receive apologies, would glory in it and Really Rub It In, saying things along the line of "Yes, you behaved very badly. Admit just how *very* badly you behaved. More details!" * * * QUIDDITCH WORLD CUP * * * Various people have mentioned at various time that Ron got to bring two friends to the QWC and none of the other kids got to bring even one friend. It has occured to me that Mr. Weasley might have got one extra ticket and asked his Hogwarts-age kids (the twins, Ron, and Ginny) to agree among themselves whom to invite, and MAYBE it was the twins who first shouted: "Harry, of course! Our team-mate, maybe he can pick up a few tricks from Lynch and Krum" and maybe it was Ginny who next said: "Oh, it would be nice to have Harry with us" before Ron said: "Wicked!" (in the book, it would be "Brilliant!") and MAYBE, after the kids had told their consensus to their parents, it was soft-hearted Molly who VOLUNTEERED to give up her ticket for Harry's (and Ron's) other friend. After all, later in GoF, Molly believed Rita Skeeter's claim that Hermione had been toying with Harry's affections... That would be easier if she had already thought that Harry fancied Hermione... My reason for the above theory is that it eliminates parental favoritism to Ron, allowing him to be the only one to invite guests. After all, if Arthur had started out to bring TWO guests, and asked his kids whom to bring, once Harry had been chosen, then the twins would have suggested Lee Jordan for the other. But a side-effect is mild support for the 'missing Weasley kid' (in that gap of years between Charlie and Percy): Bagman might be SUCH an unobservant fool that he doesn't remember that one of Arthur's kids was killed or lost, so he provided enough tickets for all of them... Uncmark asked <> http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/October_2000_Live_Chat_Americ a_Online.htm Q: Does the animal one turns into as an Animagi reflect your personality? A: 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! Thanks to http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ search tool, and is that OUR Narri? Boggles wrote: > I would be very, very wary of letting anyone by the name of Draco become an animagus. First, question is, can Animagi become magical beasts or just natural beasts? If Animagi can only become natural beasts, no one can be a phoenix Animagus, griffin Animagus, or dragon Animagus. Second, I don't agree that the Law of Names comes before the law of personality. Zoe Hooch asked: > How does Tom Riddle know about his mother? How does he know she's > a witch? How does he know his middle name is that of his maternal > grandfather? Well, personally, I think the orphaned baby Tom lived with his maternal grandparents until they died, so they had some time to tell him things and leave him documents. I think they died when he was a toddler: killed by little Tommy's uncontrolled strong magic and his temper tantrum. I think that Tom Jr's parents were never married: Tom Sr may never even have known that his light o' love was a witch, but he didn't break up with her because she was a witch, he broke up with her just because she was stupid enough to expect him to *marry* just because he got her pregnant. The grandparents came up with that other story as a euphemism because they were Victorians (literally, as Tom was born in 1926). If only they had told Tom Jr the truth, he could have crusaded against premarital sex instead of against Muggles. Elkins wrote: > Hmmm. Lupin's reaction? Do you mean his charming "You should have > realized if Voldemort didn't kill you, we would?" Or were you > thinking more of Sirius' "you should have died rather than betray > your friends" statement? (snip) That line of Sirius' has never > made me feel too good either. I mean... uncomfortably> I mean, of course we all like to *believe* that > we'd die rather than betray our friends, don't we? But...well... > I mean... That line of Lupin's is (to me) just fine. It's true and all. But I completely agree with you about Sirius's statement. He has no right to assert how he WOULD die, not having done so yet. Did Heinlein have Lazarus Long say somewhere, no man should criticise another for not dying well until he has died himself? Besides that moral issue, there is a little nitpick of logic, similar to the man who offered his friend first pick of the cookies and the friend chose the biggest one and the man said: "That's rude! If I'd picked first, I would have picked the other one" and the friend said: "The one you would have picked is the one you got, so why are you complaining?" Peter should have died to save James, just as James would have died to save Peter. Well, James did die to save Peter, so why are you complaining? -- From skelkins at attbi.com Tue Mar 19 08:07:32 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 08:07:32 -0000 Subject: Overcrowding on the Fourth Man Kayak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36664 On her way to deal with the problems inherent in overloading a four-man kayak, Elkins encounters an aggrieved Porphyria, who asks Imperiously: > And why is my loyalty being impugned?!?!? Porphyria! Porphyria, forgive me! Forgive us all! I offer my most abject apologies. I just...well, it's just that you're ordinarily so...oh, *you* know. That you give the impression of being so, er, so...so... So canonically pure. So *incorruptible,* don't you know, I mean, I really didn't think that you could possibly want anything to *do* with something this subversive, far less allow yourself to be seen in public with a motley crew like *us,* but I mean, of *course* there's room for you, *always* room for you, *more* than enough room for *you,* Porphyria, it's just that I honestly never imagined, I mean I never even dared to *hope*-- > All this time I have been happily imagining Avery slaving under > Mrs. Lestrange's imperio, forced to polish her boots over and over > and over... Oh, lord yes. Boots. Leather boots. Shiny shiny leather boo... Um. Yes. Right. Well. I think that there's, um, something else that I have to take care of right now. Please do excuse me. Eloise complained: > And besides a kayak's so....well, little...and a bit wet and > uncomfortable. Now, if only you could upgrade a little..... Eileen hastens to explain: > Ah, but Cindy prizes toughness. The kayak, I think, is supposed to > build our characters. Unfortunately, us sycophants aren't > benefitting from the situation. No. We *really* aren't. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm freezing my character right *off* in this wretched thing. And I don't know that anyone else is entirely happy with the situation, either. I mean, poor Avery's already nearly drowned once, and Jake's been underwater for months trying to waterski, and just think of Dicentra's chiropracty bills! I'm tired of it, and because I'm a sycophant, I don't mind whining piteously about it to anyone who will listen. I am *tired* of getting splashed all the time, and I'm tired of being wet and cold and exposed to all of the elements, and I'm tired of getting blisters on my hands from these rotten paddles, and I'm tired of having nowhere to mount the few measly little canons that we possess, and I'm *particularly* tired of having no bar on board. The 8-person inflatable raft was a nice idea -- especially since it came with those icy mimosas -- but according to my last roster, we've now actually got *nine* people trying to fit themselves into this little kayak, and that's not even counting Avery *or* Dicentra, who I think may be that soft lump that I can feel wedged underneath my left foot somewhere. So I say that we forget all about the inflatable raft and go straight on up to adopting Jake's suggestion of getting ourselves a sporty new hovercraft. A hovercraft seems perfectly appropriate to me, as it (a) is amphibious, thus representing our optional SHIP status and (b) skims along the *top* of the water, thus providing a homage of sorts to Mr. Avery's own perpetually cold feet. And I've got a great idea as to how we can finance it, too. All we really need to do is to sell off Avery's ancestral home... Oh, come now, Mr. Avery. You know full well that you aren't going to need it for very much longer anyway. And besides, I've already spoken to the local council, they're very excited about the deal, the fellow I spoke to on the phone said something about tearing down that big draughty house of yours and all of those gloomy old yew trees, and instead putting up an entire row of nice new Council flats, with everything all updated and clean and modern... Marlys, since you're a kindly sort of Fourth Man with Remorse person, do you think that maybe you could pass Mr. Avery a tissue? He seems to have something in his eye. That's super, thanks. --------- You see, the problems with overcrowding become evident right here: Eileen: > As Elkins has noted, I'm a Fourth Man with Remorse. Frankly, I > don't get the point of Imperius AND Remorse. Don't they cancel each > other out? Or is Avery one of those sensitive souls who worries > about everything? Lupin without EDGE? Cindy: > I'm not using this Big paddle to help row the Fourth Man kayak or > anything. No, no. I plan on picking a serious fight with the other > Fourth Man passengers, and I need this Big paddle to defend > myself. You see, Fourth Man with Remorse is just, well . . . > forgive me, but . . . it's kinda lame... and then, later: > Fourth Man with Innocence is crashing against the rocks, too. Eileen (to Cindy, about Avery): > And don't you dare touch him again. We actually LIKE him! Whoah! WHOAH! People, *people!* Let's not quarrel, shall we? Not with the space so tight, and not with everyone holding paddles, all right? I mean, you *know* that kayaks aren't the most stable of vessels to begin with. You're going to have us all in the water, if you keep this up. Now. There is plenty of room...well, okay. So there's no room at all right now. But once we get our shiny new hovercraft, there will be plenty of room for everyone, regardless of their favored Fourth Man variations. In the meantime, let's all try to play nice, okay? So. First off, Fourth Man with Imperius and Remorse. Eileen objected: > Frankly, I don't get the point of Imperius AND Remorse. Don't they > cancel each other out? Only if you believe that he was under the Imperius Curse from start to finish, and that he really did try to struggle against it. Then remorse would certainly seem an unnecessary (if not, IMO, at all unlikely or unexpected) emotional response. As I've argued elsewhere, though, I don't believe for a second that anyone became a Death Eater under the control of the Imperius Curse. Voldemort and his Death Eaters are mystically linked in some fashion, as are all of the Death Eaters to each other. Voldemort can use Pettigrew's Dark Mark to affect all of the DEs; he can summon the DEs to apparate to his side without giving them explicit directions to his spatial location; either by simple virtue of his state of being or by an extension of his will, he can cause the mark to become visible. In the graveyard, he reminds the DEs that they swore eternal loyalty to him. That all sounds to me like a serious magical compact, not the sort of thing that you enter into under the influence of Imperius, or hypnosis, or anything else of that sort. To my mind, canon strongly suggests that anyone bearing that mark chose to enter into a binding relationship with Voldemort with their volition more or less intact at the time. In my version of Fourth Man With Imperius, though, Avery was put under the curse after he had already signed up, by his *friends,* to help him out with his little squeamishness problem. This is a relative of Cindy's "In Over His Head Fourth Man" approach: it suggests that while Avery was indeed at that point in his life perfectly *willing* to engage in the uglier aspects of being a member of a terrorist organization, he just plain didn't have the stomach for it. The spirit was willing, but the viscera was weak. You know, kind of like the opposite of how I prefer to interpret Snape? ;-) I also tend to perceive Avery as a somewhat, er... A somewhat submissive personality. I think that it gave him a secret sick *thrill* to allow more dominant types to "force" him to do Things No Decent Person Would Ever Do. I don't think that he fought very hard against it at all. I think that he kinda liked it. This, to my mind, is perfectly in keeping with the character we see in the graveyard. Surely Avery must have known, don't you think, that whoever cracked first was going to get nailed? I mean, as readers, *we* all certainly knew that, didn't we? And Avery had worked for Voldemort before. He must have known that the Cruciatus was coming. Why else would he have been shaking so violently? I'm convinced that he *wanted* to be punished. To my mind, this is consistent with Fourth Man With Remorse. It's also consistent with the personality type of someone who would have submitted himself semi- voluntarily to the Imperius Curse. And if Avery really *had* been under the Imperius Curse at some point in his DE career, then that might well have contributed to his ability to wrangle an acquittal or a pardon later on, thus allowing this entire far-fetched theory to stay afloat, no? On the subject of Fourth Man With Remorse, Cindy wrote: > You see, Fourth Man with Remorse is just, well . . . forgive me, > but . . . it's kinda lame. I mean, how can Avery *possibly* have > remorse? He apparated to the graveyard, for heaven's sake. Well, let's take a look and see what his options were, shall we? 1) Not apparating to the graveyard when the Dark Mark burned, but instead staying home and reading a nice book. "How many will be brave enough to return when they feel it? And how many will be foolish enough to stay away?" I think it safe to assume that any of the DEs who didn't apparate to the graveyard that night, and who don't manage to provide some *very* compelling excuse for their absence, are very likely going to wind up as walking targets. They're dead men. And while Avery may be remorseful, he is certainly not courageous. If he were a courageous individual, then he wouldn't be in this situation in the first place, now, would he? Everyone who thinks that the Death Eaters are in the habit of granting their traitors clean and painless deaths, raise your hands! No. I don't think so either. 2) Not apparating to the graveyard and instead fleeing into hiding. The Karkaroff approach. But at least Karkaroff has an Unplottable school that he might try to hide in. Where's Avery going to go? He's mystically linked to both Voldemort and to his fellow DEs. I think that if they really wanted to find him, they'd find him. 3) Turning himself in to the Ministry at once, explaining the situation, and hoping that Azkaban might protect him from Voldemort's wrath. Even assuming that it did, he'd still be dead of the dementors in a matter of years. If he's truly remorseful, as Fourth Man With Remorse claims, then make that a matter of *months.* Does Fourth Man With Remorse really want to spend his very last wretched months on this earth reliving the torture of the Longbottoms in vivid color and Sensaround Sound? Oh, I don't think so. 4) Drawing himself a nice hot bath and slitting his wrists. A very tempting option, I suspect, but it does bring us right back to that pesky little "too cowardly to die" problem. 5) Going to the graveyard and taking his chances. Yeah. So Avery went for option (5). It doesn't mean that he doesn't feel remorse. It just means that he's a coward. But surely we were all already agreed on that point, weren't we? > And as I established above, no one in the wizarding world has any > idea what proper remorse is. Remorse is *not* returning to the side > of Evil the first time you get a Dark Mark hot flash, throwing > yourself to the ground to beg forgiveness for not being Evil enough > for the last decade, tolerating a few seconds of Crucio, and then > continuing right along in your Evil old ways. Remorse isn't the same thing as "atonement." One can certainly feel genuine remorse and yet prove too weak or too frightened to act upon it. Taking heroic action to redeem oneself would indeed be the *admirable* response, but Fourth Man With Remorse *isn't* admirable. He's just remorseful. Eileen wrote: > Remorse is not incompatible with ending up with Voldemort again. In > fact, if you believe us "Remorse" people, that's Avery's defining > characteristic. He keeps getting out of it, and then being pulled > back in. He probably hates himself, and keeps quavering between > continuing his evil ways and turning himself in. And he does seem > guilty when he's talking to Voldemort, no? He sure does! Voldemort starts talking ideological impurity, and Avery just goes all to pieces. If he were genuinely loyal to the DE cause, then why would he have chosen that very moment to Crack? He snaps, you will recall, right after Voldemort suggests that perhaps some of his DEs "now pay allegiance to another." Why would that have *got* to him so much, if he hadn't at least internally changed his allegiance at some point over the past decade? It Just Makes Sense, Cindy! Fourth Man With Remorse Just Makes Sense! And Eileen's right about the Big Bangs too, you know. Fourth Man With Remorse really *does* offer better opportunities for Big Banginess than No-Frills Fourth Man does. Just think of the weeping! (Or do you only enjoy weeping when you can manage to force Snape to indulge in it?) But I guess that I'm willing to allow all you No-Frills people to balk at attributing Remorse to the Fourth Man, if you really want to. (Incidentally, has anyone but me noticed that all of the No-Frills people are also members in good standing of the Order of the Flying Hedgehog? Just as the SYCOPHANTS all favor their Fourth Man with some side-helping of Remorse? It's just disgusting, isn't it? I mean, we're all so grotesquely *predictable!*) Cindy: > Although I'm always willing to be persuaded that Fourth Man with > Remorse can be spared from walking the plank. Do kayaks even have > planks? Kayaks don't. But do hovercraft? Um, let's *not* install a plank, shall we? I've some very bad memories involving planks. About Fourth Man With Innocence, Cindy wrote: > I beg your pardon? Do you mean that Avery is innocent because he > couldn't muster the strength to actually aim his own wand directly > at Frank Longbottom? Avery's Crucio curses were pinging off the > walls or something, so that makes it OK? No, no, no! (Although that *would* be pretty funny, in a sick FEATHERBOASish sort of way.) But according to Fourth Man With Innocence, Avery wasn't even *in* on the plot to restore Voldemort to power! He wasn't anywhere near the place, he knew nothing about it until after his arrest, he would have been horrified if he *had* known anything about it, and the only reason that he was apprehended by the Aurors in the first place was an assumption of guilt based on his association with the Lestranges. He was unjustly accused, and since he never received a fair trial, unjustly convicted as well -- and so the eventual reversal of his sentence did indeed represent a triumph of legal fairness over prejudicial conviction. Alas, not one person has yet expressed the slightest inclination to pick up one of the Fourth Man With Innocence paddles we've got lying around here in this kayak, so perhaps Cindy's got a point about it after all. Still, I am loathe to chuck out Fourth Man With Innocence altogether. The possibility still exists that someone -- perhaps someone with an even more badly hemorrhaging heart than I myself possess -- will someday want to espouse it, and when that person comes along, we'll have a Fourth Man With Innocence paddle all ready and waiting for them. Not, of course, that we're going to need paddles, once we get ourselves a hovercraft. But I'm tired of badges. And the paddles can double as a means of self-defense... No, Avery. Some of us here may sympathize with your plight, but I'm afraid that not a one of us really believes a single word of that story of yours. Sorry. -- Elkins, hoping that once we've got a hovercraft, Jake will indeed bring the refreshments, as while she may indeed be a bit of an offender in the OT department, she has yet to develop a taste for Spam. From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 08:19:11 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 08:19:11 -0000 Subject: scar = alarm bell? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36665 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "christi0469" wrote: > > I have a very recent paperback UK copy of GoF. The wand order issue > is corrected (Lily comes out before James and says 'Your father is > coming...), but the 'never' is still omitted from Fudge's scar > comment. Curiouser and curiouser... Yes... "I've heard of a curse scar acting as an alarm bell before" - I read this so that he /had/ heard, but does NOT grant it any validity. For all I know, Wizard-fairy-tales have that sort of scars all over! Or Mad-Eye-Moody (whom most view as paranoid and grazy) - so um - he's figuring Dumbledore with a bit of contempt because he *believes* that curse-scars work as alarm-bell. You know, a non-UFO- believer who has been told of a UFO landing somewhere... From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 09:35:38 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 09:35:38 -0000 Subject: The letter from Ministry & Dobby. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36666 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Debbie Westmerland" wrote: > The letter was from the ministry if you remember in PoA, when Fudge finds Harry on the bus. Harry was worried about getting expelled from school because he used magic and Fudge says it doesn't matter, Harry said to him about when he got the letter, Fudge said that the circumstances had changed but he didn't say anything about not sending a letter. > > I hope that made sense :) How about: Dobby stole most of the letters so they had to do so. Circumstances... a) Harry had saved Hogwarts school from a basilisk! b) They discovered about Dobby doing the magic, not Harry (I guess Dobby told them) c) Harry was extremely upset, and had NOT used his wand for anything except survival... Expelling would be death-sentence to Harry. d) Fudge would get *lots* of hate-mail if he expelled Harry. e) Escape of Sirius Black I also figure that the rule about under-age wizards not allowed to use magic-- backfired transfiguration spell would be a risk - is not exactly considered much. They might have asked Harry to explain but Dobby stole the letter! Speaking of Dobby... I think he was Potters' house-elf first. He's treating Harry much the way Winky does Mr. Crouch. Dobby's the /only/ house-elf in such awe for Harry. Now he wants to be free long enough for Harry to mature so he might get back to being a proper house-elf. He's also braver than Winky about his freedom... James Potter may have told him not to join them because the concealment Charm couldn't be done if you had a house-elf around... I think there's two ways to sack a house-elf: Give him money or clothes. Money's better - it's giving a *good* rating when dismissing - clothes being *bad* rating. Getting paid. You're not *bond* to the master, causing his property to end. Most house-elves consider this a disgrace, but Dobby wishes to regain his bond to Potters... Winky would want nothing more than to get back to Crouch! Maybe she's looking after the body of Mr. Crouch Jr. now that he's been Kissed... From pen at pensnest.co.uk Mon Mar 18 14:55:15 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:55:15 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] scar = alarm bell? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36667 Steven Vander Ark said: > My question refers to a possible difference between > the UK and US versions of GofF. In the scene very > near the end where Dumbledore is trying to convince > Fudge that V. is back, Fudge says "I"ve never heard > of a curse scar acting as an alarm bell before". > It has been raised, on the HPGalleries forum, that > the UK version omits the word "never", which changes > the whole meaning drastically. >Can anyone shed some light on this? Is there a difference at this >point in the books between the US and UK versions? My US edition >does say "never." Certainly in my Stephen Fry audio book, the 'never' is omitted, and it is very irritating indeed, as the sentence becomes absurd without it. Grr. Pen From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 10:14:33 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:14:33 -0000 Subject: Concern for Neville In-Reply-To: <005701c1cb55$a460f1c0$a920a4d5@satec.es> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36668 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., ruben at s... wrote: > Finwitch just said: > > All Neville's problems have to do with forgetting something - there's > > nothing *else* wrong with him - only that he can't remember... > > He's also quite clumsy. But then, so am I :-) Because he never learned to move fluently -- due to overprotection AND bad memory... > Now seriously - a botched memory charm would be a good explanation to his > behaviour. It's been used quite convincingly by some fanfic authors, too. > Not that it matters here. It would - and we've had examples of memory charms effect. Lockhart, Bertha Jorkins and the poor Muggle in Quidditch World Cup. All having trouble to remember most trivial things like Neville! > The reasons why he got the charm aren't that clear to me - the most obvious reason > would be to help him get over the trauma of the DE attack on his parents. > But just think - he visits his parents regularly and we assume he knows what > happened to them. It wouldn't have been *right* keeping that from him. > If you want to spare a small child some of the suffering, but don't really > want him to *forget*, wouldn't you use a less definitive method? Such as we > do in 'real' life without magic? We would - Lockhart not. Those who tortured Neville's parents -- well... Maybe Barty Crouch Jr did *memory charm* on Neville, but didn't torture Frank Longbottom or his wife? *They* might have tortured Neville, too... No wonder he's so clumsy. > They wouldn't have felt compelled to be overly careful about it. > If he ever gets his memory back - will we learn something important? Something... Like that Bartolomeus Crouch Junior did NOT take part in torturing his parents, but that Lucius Malfoy did! (or other liberated DEs Harry named, but Lucius Malfoy and Lestranges... well, well, well... > Some other thoughts: Neville's innate magic ability took quite long to surface, > and it only appeared under danger of death. Could a bungled memory charm have > affected his ability to react with spontaneous magic to adverse situations? > Or maybe the innate degree of magic is not the same for everyone? It was quite > evident in Harry's case... Well - Fear or Anger. Neville probably saw his parents tortured, and he himself was tortured. That was his worst experience... I think he developed a block like Harry did with accio... > Last but not least, why do people think Neville is weak? He's too shy, > owing to his memory problems, but I see him as a strong character once > he gets over that. And he has an excellent reason to oppose Voldemort - > he knows first hand the kind of world Voldemort wants. Neville will never join DEs - he'll never willingly hurt anyone. He has inner strength... But there's always /Imperius/- curse. Few *adults* are able to resist - Harry's probably only one who's done it at the age of 14! Neville is one of the few I think may grow into resisting. From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 10:32:56 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:32:56 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat -- Confused? Or having fun? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36669 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > brewpub44 wrote: > > I have been thinking about Harry's sorting ceremony. Harry starts > > off by mumbling "not Slytherin", and the hat challenges him back. > > I think the Hat may be *testing* him. I have this theory that the Hat > is actively intervening in the Slytherin - Gryffindor conflict, on > Grfiindor's side (it was Gryffindor's hat, after all.) The Hat wants > to make sure that Harry can be trusted to represent Gryffindor. Yes... but any one wizard has always considered his house the best one to be in. Well - it's because they *do* value what are characteristic to their house. From ruben at satec.es Tue Mar 19 10:37:48 2002 From: ruben at satec.es (elirtai) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:37:48 -0000 Subject: Fudge knew better (was Re: Vold.vs. Dementors / Fudge / Flitwick) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020318153807.00a15610@seusilva@pop3.uol.com.br> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36670 T.S.Silva wrote among other things: > (ii) Fudge's skepticism in GoF 36 (The Parting of The Ways) isn't > in accord with PoA, chp.10: [snip] > "I must say, You-Know-Who alone and friendless is one thing... > but give him back his most devoted servant, and > I shudder to think how quickly he'll rise again...." > > What is the reason of his "unbelief" in GoF 36? Well, I guess that thinking of a hypothetical Voldemort return while sipping your cocktail at the Three Broomsticks isn't quite the same as acknowledging he has finally come back, and that *YOU* are to lead the war against him, is it? It's the symptom of the ostrich who hides his head and hopes for the danger to pass. Trust old Fudge to do that in a crisis. I'm sorry, but I hate the man. We all know someone like him :-) Elirtai From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 11:15:18 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:15:18 -0000 Subject: Minerva and Marvelo In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36671 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nyarth_meow" wrote: > I was wondering the other day if Minerva McGonagall was a contempory > of Tom Riddle's at Hogwarts, and whether this might be relevant. > I've heard JKR put her age at both "a spritely 70" and "65", which > suggests maybe not, as the author herself doesn't consider M's age > important enough to even be fixed. Fixed? She didn't stop gathering years. Say - she's 65 when Harry first meets her and 70 in the END of the fourth book. Her birthday being in June... > *However* Assuming McGonagall is around 65, and the chamber of > secrets was opened about 50 years ago when Tom Riddle was 15... They > would have been at Hogwarts at the same time, even if not in the same > year. Maybe Minerva has a more important role than we might imagine > in future books? Yes - I think she was in Hogwarts with Tom Marvolo Riddle. Dumbledore tought her how to be animagus, I think, during her third year. She might have been the one who found Myrtle... We know how SHE died - what of the other ghosts? I'm *Very* interested on Bloody Baron (supposedly any ghost could do *something* to control Peeves, but only Bloody Baron ever *does*) From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Mar 19 12:58:27 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (edblanning) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:58:27 -0000 Subject: scar = alarm bell? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36672 Pen: > Certainly in my Stephen Fry audio book, the 'never' is omitted, and it is > very irritating indeed, as the sentence becomes absurd without it. Grr. I have the original UK hardback(first ed), with the 'never' omitted. I agree, that it 'sounds' odd. However, it comes at the point where Dumbledore has just assured Fudge that the scar has not addled Harry's brains. Fudge is suggesting that he is unbalanced - or possibly worse - so omitting the 'never' *does* potentially make sense: Fudge seeing it as a warning that Harry cannot be trusted (or that's how I've always read it until now). Eloise From MurielP at aol.com Tue Mar 19 03:49:00 2002 From: MurielP at aol.com (murielplouis) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 03:49:00 -0000 Subject: Arabella Figg - Animagus?? In-Reply-To: <20020316213444.56953.qmail@web14901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36673 I don't think Arabella Figg is an Animagus. I think she is the Mrs. Figg that the Dursely's send Harry to when they go out & don't want to bring Harry with them. "murielplouis" From ruben at satec.es Tue Mar 19 13:39:58 2002 From: ruben at satec.es (elirtai) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:39:58 -0000 Subject: Minerva and Marvolo and Animagi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36674 Finwitch wrote: > Yes - I think she was in Hogwarts with Tom Marvolo Riddle. It seems that most wizard in Britain studied at Hogwarts. It could well be everyone of them. So that would be a yes. > Dumbledore > tought her how to be animagus, I think, during her third year. That would make sense since he was teaching Transfiguration. Now, would that imply he's an Animagus? The question is, if the Animagus transfiguration is a very rare skill, can it be taught by someone who haven't mastered it, no matter how adept he/she is at Transfiguration? What do yo think? Then, we have Prongs, Padfoot and Wormtail. The three of them wanted to become Animagi, and the three of them suceeded (without 'proper' training). We have Rita too. Surely it's not a skill for everyone, but it doesn't seem to be that rare after all... in that case McGonagall didn't need anyone else once she knew enough Transfiguration, and it would follow there could be a lot of unregistered Animagi we don't know of. Elirtai From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Mar 19 16:18:31 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:18:31 -0000 Subject: Overcrowding on the Fourth Man Kayak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36675 Scene: Outside the Ancestral Home of the Averys, A Dark night. Lord Voldemort and Peter Pettigrew apparate. Voldemort:(looking around) This is Avery's ancestral home? (The yew trees have been chopped down and demolition work has begun on the Tudor-era mansion.) Pettigrew: My lord, this seems to be the place. Voldemort:(reading a sign) Tudor Towers: A New Way of Living. (Lucius Malfoy apparates in) Voldemort: Lucius, my slippery friend, can you enlighten us as to what is going on? Malfoy: Is Avery here? Voldemort: No. Malfoy: He's been missing for days. At first we thought the aurors might have got him again, but then we began to hear strange news of a kayak. Voldemort: A kayak, Lucius? Malfoy: That's what the rumours said. And then, last fortnight, a woman, an American Muggle, came to London and said she was Avery's representative and he wanted to sell this place so they could build Muggle flats. She had Avery's signature and all, but you know how easily you can put him under Imperius. Voldemort: And who are these... kayakers? Malfoy: They're shopping around for a hovercraft now. Our informants can't make head or tail of them. Except they've somehow got Avery with them. One of them tried to drown him. Voldemort: Well, you must retrieve Avery, then, mustn't you? Malfoy: My lord, they have... a little canon on board. Voldemort: I do not hear excuses, Lucius. Lucius: Yes, my Lord. The Fourth Manners will not survive. Pettigrew: Fourth Manners? Voldemort: (looking about) Wormtail, do you think we could get much money for *my* ancestral home? A hovercraft... hmmm... Meanwhile, back at the crowded kayak. > to the Fourth Man kayak, where she notices Avery watching her with a > commiserating -- if also rather unpleasantly knowing -- expression. > "What are *you* staring at?" she snaps. He quickly looks away.> "You know," said Eileen, massaging her legs, and gathering shells off the beach for future defense against attack. "That's the good point about Avery. If you can stare him in the eyes, he stops looking at you. Of course, it takes nerve to stare into those big brown miserable eyes and not break down and apologize for stuffing him under the seat." Elkins has come with glad news: >I don't know about anyone else, but I'm > freezing my character right *off* in this wretched thing. And I > don't know that anyone else is entirely happy with the situation, > either. I mean, poor Avery's already nearly drowned once, and Jake's > been underwater for months trying to waterski, and just think of > Dicentra's chiropracty bills! I'm tired of it, and because I'm a > sycophant, I don't mind whining piteously about it to anyone who will > listen. I am *tired* of getting splashed all the time, and I'm tired > of being wet and cold and exposed to all of the elements, and I'm > tired of getting blisters on my hands from these rotten paddles, and > I'm tired of having nowhere to mount the few measly little canons > that we possess, and I'm *particularly* tired of having no bar on > board. Hear! Hear! We need a hovercraft, and even tough Cindy will be very happy about this, as we can keep Avery on one side, and she can stay on the other. Elkins is explaining: > A somewhat submissive personality. I think that it gave him a secret > sick *thrill* to allow more dominant types to "force" him to do > Things No Decent Person Would Ever Do. I don't think that he fought > very hard against it at all. I think that he kinda liked it. HMMMMM.... you may be converting me to Fourth Man with Imperius... unless you have me under Imperius. Eileen casts her mind back to a certain scene when Elkins was yelling, "Jump! Jump!" up to the deck of LOLLIPOPS, and Tabouli caught her by the scruff of her neck just as she was about to fall into eel infested water. Still, I think I will sign up for Fourth Man with Remorse and some form of Imperius after all. It's very big bangy if you think about it. I'll abstain from SHIP, though. Like Cindy, "Mrs. Lestrange's Little Pet Avery" gives me the creeps. Elkins: > And if Avery really *had* been under the Imperius Curse at some point > in his DE career, then that might well have contributed to his > ability to wrangle an acquittal or a pardon later on, thus allowing > this entire far-fetched theory to stay afloat, no? Brilliant point. He'd have a better case than Malfoy and the rest. People, especially Percy Weasley, might actually believe him. (N.B. We can't forget Percy Weasley. He's an important part of my Fourth Man relevance theory, and when are you going to write that massive Percy-post, Elkins?) Elkins: > And Eileen's right about the Big Bangs too, you know. Fourth Man > With Remorse really *does* offer better opportunities for Big > Banginess than No-Frills Fourth Man does. Just think of the > weeping! (Or do you only enjoy weeping when you can manage to force > Snape to indulge in it?) Cindy likes weeping Snape? Eileen turns and looks at Cindy in a new light. Is this true? And you call yourself tough? Cindy, in a heroic attempt to give her no-Frills Avery big bang qualities has otherwhere posted a scenario in which Sirius worked for Magical Catastrophes, and then his colleagues Avery and big bad death eater Fudge showed up, showed him no sympathy and support, and proceeded to... ummmm fudge the evidence. She pictured Sirius looking Avery in his big brown eyes, and suddenly realizing that he has been betrayed for the second time in 24 hours. First of all, the thing does have Big Bang potential, even if it makes for a redundant Big Bang. However, it couldn't have happened. How one earth is Avery going to be acquitted the first time around if he waits to frame Sirius before giving himself in? "I was under Imperius, Moody, you'll understand that. One of those 24 hours after the fact relenting varieties." It doesn't make sense and furthermore, it's not BIG BANGY. I prefer Avery already being at the Ministry, working the night shift. Avery suddenly senses Voldemort's destruction, and breaks down RIGHT THERE. Not understanding his wild babblings, they first attempt to comfort him, thinking he's broken down under too much stress, but draw back in horror, when they begin to understand. And Avery is taken away by the dementors, pleading, crying etc. That would make a good movie scene, especially shot from the point of view of his friends at the Ministry. The sudden realization thing always gets me. > Innocence paddle and slaps it away irritably.> > > No, Avery. Some of us here may sympathize with your plight, but I'm > afraid that not a one of us really believes a single word of that > story of yours. Sorry. Good call there, Elkins. He may be remorseful or he may not, but we still have to remember we've got a full-fledged Death Eater on board. To get into the circle, he must at least know Avada Kedavra. We'll have to keep a close watch on him, and make sure he doesn't get hold of any paddles he could use on our heads. Have fun shopping for the hovercraft. Eileen goes back to telling Avery about her lifelong fascination with SYCOPHANTS, a subject he seems to appreciate, as he never interrupts... Just those eyes. From cindysphynx at comcast.net Tue Mar 19 16:29:15 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:29:15 -0000 Subject: Overcrowding on the Fourth Man Kayak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36676 Too bad the boards came back up. I thought for a moment I had secured for myself the last word on Fourth Man, and I was feeling mighty pleased with myself. ;-) But then came this: **************** Elkins complained about the kayak (which incidentally is a two- person, not a four-person, vessel): >I don't know about anyone else, but I'm > freezing my character right *off* in this wretched thing. And I > don't know that anyone else is entirely happy with the situation, > either. Well, *fine* then. It is getting rather crowded, and I don't want to fall overboard because, uh, I can't even swim. That's why I am huddled smack in the middle of a theory that I didn't even invent. We can offload the kayak in favor of the hovercraft, OK? I assume that hovercrafts come with electricity, so we can have blended drinks with goofy umbrellas and other creature comforts. Seems like a fair compromise. If it is all right with everyone, I will lash the kayak to the ToadKeeper, which is lashed to the Big Bang. Henceforth, the two- person kayak will house the Florence Trapezoid believers. Right now, the Trapezoid kayak is operating at only 50% occupancy. I will make another membership pitch at the next opportunity. Elkins (explaining Fourth Man With Remorse): >This is a > relative of Cindy's "In Over His Head Fourth Man" approach: it > suggests that while Avery was indeed at that point in his life > perfectly *willing* to engage in the uglier aspects of being a member > of a terrorist organization, he just plain didn't have the stomach > for it. The spirit was willing, but the viscera was weak. Yes, but Fourth Man With Remorse is actually weaker than In Over His Head Fourth Man. Hard to believe, I know, but true. You see, In Over His Head Fourth Man (IOHHFM, for short) copes the best he can with his lack of competence and fortitude. I can relate to that. Soldiering on despite desperately-average talent. Trying to raise one's level of performance, only to be dragged down again and again by the ever-present anchor of mediocrity. Watching your peers win the praise of the Evil Overlord while you receive only a half-hearted insult from your master when he is not ignoring you entirely. Oh, it is no fun, no fun at all. Fourth Man With Remorse, however, resorts to the wizarding equivalent of a mood-altering drug. Fourth Man With Remorse doesn't know how to s--- it u-, so he has his buddies take the pain away. Fourth Man With Remorse is having an "Up With People" kind of existence premised on the Imperius Curse. Ick, ick, ick. I think it is bangier to have IOHHFM, who has to suffer his internal conflict every time the Dark Mark burns. Who has to practice his Crucio curses so they hit their targets instead of hitting the DE who is holding the victim's hands behind his back. Who has to look in the mirror every morning and slap his face, resolving that today he will turn it around once and for all and be Evil To The Core. But hey, it's your hovercraft. I'm just along for the ride. Although I'm bringing my paddle and resting it across my knees as a tray for my drinks and snacks. So if you see me moving my potted meats and mimosa onto the floor of the hovercraft, that means I am about to use my Big Paddle for something else, and I'm *not* referring to its potential as a flotation device. Elkins continued (about her dream Avery): > A somewhat submissive personality. I think that it gave him a secret > sick *thrill* to allow more dominant types to "force" him to do > Things No Decent Person Would Ever Do. I don't think that he fought > very hard against it at all. I think that he kinda liked it. Can I raise a quick Tew Eww to be Trew objection? I mean, Ewwww! Avery *likes* being dominated? Where on earth are you getting that? Oh, you mean because Avery practically volunteered for Voldemort's very first non-slimy-baby Cruciatus? You think maybe those were screams of pleasure? Well, OK. Harry is too young to know the difference between screams of pain and screams of pleasure, so it's possible. I'm with you then. Avery likes pain. He likes to be tortured. He likes to squirm. It's Bangy. Definitely Bangy. In a twisted, NR-17 kind of way. Elkins again (listing Avery's options): > 1) Not apparating to the graveyard when the Dark Mark burned, but > instead staying home and reading a nice book. > Well, there is an option 1(a): Avery could have sought out Dumbledore and inquired about an opening. DADA teacher, CoMC teacher, Charms, groundskeeper, whatever. Avery is very flexible about his career options. Avery, if he really felt remorse (as opposed to, um, a secret desire to be tortured and dominated), could have pulled a Snape. He could have gone to Dumbledore and begged for a safe haven. It worked for Snape, right? Dumbledore could have twinkled at Avery and immediately discerned that his conversion was sincere. It's not like Avery didn't have notice. The Dark Mark was simmering for a while before Voldemort returned. Avery had plenty of time to line up an interview. Now that you mention it, why didn't Karkaroff seek a safe haven with Dumbledore? Maybe it had to do with that little spitting incident. But Karkaroff could have apologized and pledged to keep his saliva to himself, and Dumbledore would have forgiven him . . . Oh, yeah. Wizards don't apologize. Never mind. Elkins again: > Remorse isn't the same thing as "atonement." One can certainly feel > genuine remorse and yet prove too weak or too frightened to act upon > it. Taking heroic action to redeem oneself would indeed be the > *admirable* response, but Fourth Man With Remorse *isn't* admirable. > He's just remorseful. > OK, now I think I get it. In Avery's case, remorse is just a feeling. A vague feeling with no outward manifestations, except perhaps the inability to put any Oomph behind his Cruciatus Curses. In that case, sure, Fourth Man can be Fourth Man With Remorse, because the Remorse part doesn't count for much and is pretty meaningless and impotent, really. Elkins: > It Just Makes Sense, Cindy! Fourth Man With Remorse Just Makes Sense! Yeah, OK. I guess Fourth Man With Remorse can stay in the hovercraft. As a sign of respect for Captain Elkins, I also pledge not to throw him overboard when no one is looking. Note that I'm not denying that I have other plans for Fourth Man. If he happens to recline his hefty backside into the hot tub, I might be tempted to hand him a plugged-in electrical appliance. So, uh, the rest of you had best stay out of the hot tub if Fourth Man is in there, because the water might suddenly get a little hotter than Fourth Man is expecting, if you catch my drift. Elkins again: > And Eileen's right about the Big Bangs too, you know. Fourth Man > With Remorse really *does* offer better opportunities for Big > Banginess than No-Frills Fourth Man does. Just think of the > weeping! (Or do you only enjoy weeping when you can manage to force > Snape to indulge in it?) Well, you know, I relate to Toughness, so I'm not a big fan of all the weeping. Weeping from grown men who are supposed to be Tough is especially hard to swallow. I know JKR is with me on this anti- weeping thing, too. When Pettigrew weeps, she writes: "Pettigrew burst into tears. It was horrible to watch, like an oversized, balding baby cowering on the floor." JKR detests Pettigrew and his weeping. No, I much prefer the yelling, the sarcasm, the Edge, and the snappy insults, myself. Watching a SYCOPHANT like Avery weeping is really kind of redundant -- it's just watching the weak be weaker. What a snooze! It's overkill. It's something Chris Columbus would do, and I can think of no higher insult than that. Now Snape is another thing altogether. Oh yeah. After 4 books of terrorizing people and rarely for good reason, I will really be excited when Snape gets his. And you know he will. Deep down, you know. JKR doesn't like Snape. To us, he's all mystery. To her, he is just a prop used to complicate things, upset Harry and upset the reader. Snape is going to get one of those long, inventive, painful DE deaths Elkins was talking about. Maybe one of those Evil Overlord overly complicated deaths involving alligators and huge saws and walls that slowly move toward each other. Oh, man, it is going to go on for chapter after chapter after chapter. But Snape will not weep, and I will respect him for that. Yet, I will grieve for Snape. Simply out of respect for the Snapefans, I will grieve. I will wear black for Snape, and not because it is slimming. I will grieve because there aren't that many Tough characters, and it will be quite a shame to lose one. Elkins again: > (Incidentally, has anyone but me noticed that all of the No-Frills > people are also members in good standing of the Order of the Flying > Hedgehog? Just as the SYCOPHANTS all favor their Fourth Man with > some side-helping of Remorse? It's just disgusting, isn't it? I > mean, we're all so grotesquely *predictable!*) Oh, no. I think if you were to check the badges closely, you'd find quite a bit of disagreement about things like LOLLIPOPS, FLIRTIAC, and Florence. Although I think you could find a very fast consensus on ToadKeeper. Cindy (noticing that Avery is disrobing and thinking we need an executive decision on whether swimsuits are optional in the hovercraft hot tub) From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 16:47:43 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:47:43 -0000 Subject: Minerva and Marvolo and Animagi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36677 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elirtai" wrote: > Finwitch wrote: > > Dumbledore > > tought her how to be animagus, I think, during her third year. > > That would make sense since he was teaching Transfiguration. > Now, would that imply he's an Animagus? The question is, if > the Animagus transfiguration is a very rare skill, can it be > taught by someone who haven't mastered it, no matter how adept > he/she is at Transfiguration? What do yo think? I think Dumbledore is animagus. Being 150 he'd not be in the list of seven even if he is registered. After all, that list only included animagi on *this* century. Dumbledore probably registered before the first date on the list... > Then, we have Prongs, Padfoot and Wormtail. The three of them > wanted to become Animagi, and the three of them suceeded (without > 'proper' training). We have Rita too. Surely it's not a skill for > everyone, but it doesn't seem to be that rare after all... in that > case McGonagall didn't need anyone else once she knew enough > Transfiguration, and it would follow there could be a lot of > unregistered Animagi we don't know of. That means a non-animagus could teach how - or at least supervise it. Dumbledore definately knew the spell that forces animagus back to normal... A person about to become animagus probably should learn *that* spell first and not do it without a person knowing it nearby, just in case your animagus form happens to be a fish... From ladjables at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 16:51:42 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 08:51:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dumbledore's role in Priori Incantatem Message-ID: <20020319165142.16293.qmail@web20403.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36678 Hi everyone, Forgive me if this seems completely obvious/unlikely, but I believe Dumbledore had a hand in Priori Incantatem (PI). I've never considered Dumbledore omniscient, any more than I would consider him oblivious. But now Fawkes is on my mind, or rather his tail-feathers are. How significant is it that two feathers from Dumbledore's pet form the cores of Harry's and Voldemort's wands? I can't accept mere coincidence. In GoF, after Harry explains what happened with the wands, Sirius asks Dumbledore, "on whose face there is an arrested look",(GoF, US Edition, p 697) why the wands connected. Dumbledore explains that when 2 wands share cores, they will not work properly against each other. In fact, if they're forced to duel, a rare effect known as Priori Incantetem will take place. In sum, brother wands will not perform normally (especially) in battle. And yet, rare as PI is, Dumbledore knows all about it. PI is rare because brother wands are rare. One could say PI is rare because many wizards don't duel, but in CoS Dumbledore approves dueling lessons at Hogwarts, and Hermione comments that Flitwick was a dueling champion in his day, which suggests competitions take place. What about when wizards practice, or are playing around? Look at the hex-off on the train in GoF, where everyone pulled wands on each other. There are ample opportunities to discover PI. Also, the dramatic impact of PI is weakened if there are other wands that share cores hanging about. Thematically, the "cheating death" motif that binds Harry to Voldemort would be lost if phoenix wands abound. So a rare event like PI should occur totally by chance, or be prearranged. Dumbledore takes two feathers from Fawkes, feathers which symbolize the ability to cheat death, (thank you, somebody who wrote that great post on what the tailfeathers represent) and gives them to Ollivander. I am of course assuming JKR intended the phoenix feathers to be imbued with this power, and as Dumbledore is well acquainted with the regenerative nature of phoenixes, he must be familiar also with the properties of the feathers. So someone who gets a phoenix wand has the potential to escape death, and this must make a phoenix wand (and its wielder) worth keeping an eye on. But what if this person's power is evil? How could he be counteracted? It must be a rare ability. Unless someone else turns up with a similar talent, one that would neutralize the former. Dumbledore knew, when the two wands were eventually bought, that the Reverse Spell Effect would be possible. If the wands were ever to duel, they would prove ineffective as weapons. If Dumbledore allowed a dueling club at school, then I don't think he was taking a stand against dueling! And as kooky as Hogwart's headmaster is, I think he would have cared that PI was possible if these two wands ever met. PI, though rare, can't ever be a pleasant experience, even if it's intensity depends on the types of wands and spells used by the owners. A spell-regurgitating wand is just a plain nuisance. So Dumbledore withheld information, because he wanted to make sure that the Reverse Spell Effect i.e. a botched duel, WOULD be possible between the phoenix wands. After all, he had Ollivander notify him as soon as Harry bought his own wand, but never mentioned PI to Harry. Note how he explained PI to Harry and Sirius: he didn't recall some theoretical concept he had just heard of. The arrested look on his face implies restraint: he checked his reaction because he was guarding his response to Harry's story/Sirius' query. Then he carefully selected his words, trying to decide how much to let on. Yes, I got all that from a look! Don't make me mention a certain gleam of triumph... Trelawney's first prediction has been discussed many times. Let's toss it in. Was this prediction a projection of Priori Incantatem, or of the final showdown, or just the identities of Voldemort and Harry? Dumbledore's instinct and experience fighting dark wizards served him well. He knew to take Trelawney's prediction seriously, and I think it led to his involvement with the wands. Say Trelawney predicted a dark wizard who had the power to elude death could only be foiled by someone with this ability. Dumbledore is privy to this information. If the feathers were given together, and Tom Riddle was able to pick the phoenix wand, long before Voldemort even existed, then Dumbledore may have had some foresight into the matter and planned the duel between evil wizard and good wizard for over 50 years, at most. Giving the two feathers innocently seems too daffy even for Dumbledore. After defeating Grindelwald I don't think he would have rested on his laurels, that's uncharacteristically lazy. Would he have owned Fawkes since then and not known: 1)what a phoenix feather wand core would represent, which should have been portentous? 2)about priori incantatem? Alternatively, one feather could have been given first for no special reason. THEN Trelawney makes her prediction. Dumbledore realizes its import, and has Fawkes' other feather delivered for use as a wand core, requesting that Ollivander inform him as soon as this wand is bought. So Dumbledore still planned the duel at least 15 years ago. Or here's a variation: as per Trelawney's prediction, the first wand was indeed placed for a "Harry" to defeat the unidentified Dark Wizard. When Riddle chose it, Dumbledore observed Riddle carefully. He finally became aware of Riddle's true nature, and so set out to even the odds! Creating not one, but two wands seems deliberate. Not apprising the owners of PI seems deliberate. Deliberate and secretive, that's Dumbledore all over. So, I'm speculating that Dumbledore anticipated and set up Priori Incantatem. He was definitely involved, and I think Trelawney's first prediction was the key. Oh, he didn't know where and when PI would take place, but he knew those two wands would clash someday, and his motive was to give the good wizard a surviving chance. Dumbledore is aiding and supporting Harry, like the prototypical Merlin did for Arthur. Did Harry really just imagine hearing Dumbledore's voice through the phoneix song during PI? Fawkes is really Dumbledore's link to Harry. Like Merlin, Dumbledore knows what omens to pay attention to, and with a nudge here, a tweak there, he can help things fall into place. Which makes me curious as to what else Albus D. has up his roomy robe sleeves. Ama, who wonders why no-one ever talks about Dumbledore's arrested look... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/ From ladjables at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 16:55:41 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 08:55:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] FILK: I am werewolf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020319165541.18130.qmail@web20407.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36679 I printed this to share with my mother (she likes both Helen Reddy and Lupin!) because it was so great! I think you topped "Another One Flunks the Class" with this one! Ama --- marinafrants wrote: > Yeah, yeah, I know, I just can't seem to stop > writing these things. > But I really, really wanted to do one for Lupin. > > I am Werewolf > To the tune of "I am Woman" by Helen Reddy > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/3713/midis/iamwoman.mid > > LUPIN: > I am werewolf, hear me howl, > At each full moon I'm on the prowl, > A menace and a monster dark and wild. > At other times you will not see > A kinder, gentler guy than me, > Intelligent, compassionate and mild. > > Oh yes, I am strong, > Forged in loneliness and pain. > Yes, I have been wronged, > But I will not complain. > If I have to, I can bear anything. > I am alone, > I'm unemployable, > I am werewolf. > > I have courage, I have smarts, > I know Defence Against Dark Arts, > I have chocolate if Dementors give you stress. > Why, I even can teach Neville > To defeat his private devil > By making Snape-the-boggart wear a dress. > > Oh yes, I am strong, > Forged in loneliness and pain. > Yes, I have been wronged, > But I will not complain. > If I have to, I can bear anything. > I am alone, > I'm unemployable, > I am werewolf. > > I am werewolf, see me roam, > I have no place, I have no home, > I live pursued by prejudice and hate. > And I must drink on full moon nights > A potion made with aconite; > The phases of the moon control my fate. > > Oh yes, I am strong, > Forged in loneliness and pain. > Yes, I have been wronged, > But I will not complain. > If I have to, I can bear anything. > I am alone, > I'm unemployable, > I am werewolf. > I am werewolf, > I'm unemployable, > I am alone. > > Marina > rusalka at ix.netcom.com > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/ From plumeski at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 17:06:08 2002 From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:06:08 -0000 Subject: Missing "never" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36680 "siriuskase" wrote: > This current thread is the first I've > heard of the missing 'never' problem. To document these things > properly, we need to keep track of whether it is a UK or US > edition, which edition, which printing, and which printing plant. > If anyone is serious about this, we could start a database and > have each member enter the data for each book they can get > there hands on. If anyone's interested in starting such a database, my copy of GoF is 20th edition UK paperback (printed by Clays Ltd, St Ives plc) and it doesn't have the "never". From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 17:02:52 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:02:52 -0000 Subject: Arabella Figg - Animagus?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36681 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "murielplouis" wrote: > I don't think Arabella Figg is an Animagus. I think she is the Mrs. > Figg that the Dursely's send Harry to when they go out & don't want to > bring Harry with them. > She is... but it doesn't count out the possibility of her being an animagus. Anyway... She *is* a witch. The smell of cabbage in her house and the apotechary... Is she, perhaps, using ageing potion and in reality being as old as Sirius&Lupin? We've been introduced to that potion by Fred&George... From bonnie at niche-associates.com Tue Mar 19 18:17:12 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:17:12 -0000 Subject: All Things Green winner Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36682 And now comes the moment you've all been clamoring for. You'd think I knew OoP's release date with all the calls and e-mails I've been getting, saying "Dicentra, Dicentra, who won the All Things Green contest? We just can't wait to hear!" Well then, the tally goes like this: For Slytherin, 8 points For Hufflepuff, 10 points For Ravenclaw, 29 points For Gryffindor, 34 points ::claps hands; gold and scarlet hangings appear in the Great Hall; presents virtual trophy to Gryffindor House:: ::Cheers from three houses; boos and hisses from one (guess which):: And 5 points deducted from Cindy for defacing canon (post 36592), but we'll give her a sexy key-lime-green life jacket anyway because she had me bamboozled there for a second. And you have to get up pretty early in the morning to fool ol' Dicentra. --Dicentra, who did balk at the green registration number From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 17:55:12 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:55:12 -0000 Subject: Apologies - Wands for life? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36683 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lupinesque" wrote: > Leon wrote: > > > No, the wand chooses the wizard, and it's for life. > > How do we know it's for life? The only person we know to possess the > same wand for many years is Voldemort, and we don't know that the > Fawkes wand was his first; he could have bought it shortly before > killing Lily and James. Not *too* shortly, IMO--I think Ollivander's > a thoroughgoing good guy and wouldn't have sold it to him once he'd > risen to power. But it could easily be thirty years after he began at > Hogwarts. Quite - I think he *did* buy a new wand... his old one no longer suitable as he'd changed somehow (when he became sort of immortal, perhaps?) and was worn out, exploded, worn out... Yes - Ollivander would NOT sell wand to any who was deprived the right to have one. He's ashamed to think that *his* wand has killed - and caused Harry's scar. He may have given Harry a discount (without telling him) to ease his conscience. Usually a wand would cost more than 7 Galleons, I think... (OK, AD offered Dobby 10 Galleons a week - a standard salary?) I sort of doubt that a wand costs less than an average weekly payment. Thinking of the trouble he has to get the ingredients, rareness of phoenix feathers... Charlie's wand did wear out so he got a new one. I think he didn't tend it every night like Cedric... Mr. Ollivander knows what each the wand is made of- and *who* made it. Miss Delacour was exception, perhaps. Her grandmother's hair... Sounds like a specially made wand. Maybe... Maybe they teach wand- making in Beauxbatons Academy? Did Fleur make her own wand? "Grandmother, may I please have your hair for a wand?" She said she's having a job at Hogwarts - is she teaching wand-making? From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 19:18:56 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:18:56 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's role in Priori Incantatem In-Reply-To: <20020319165142.16293.qmail@web20403.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36684 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., ladjables wrote: > Say Trelawney predicted a dark wizard who had the > power to elude death could only be foiled by someone > with this ability. Dumbledore is privy to this > information. If the feathers were given together, and > Tom Riddle was able to pick the phoenix wand, long > before Voldemort even existed, then Dumbledore may > have had some foresight into the matter and planned > the duel between evil wizard and good wizard for over > 50 years, at most. Giving the two feathers innocently > seems too daffy even for Dumbledore. After defeating > Grindelwald I don't think he would have rested on his > laurels, that's uncharacteristically lazy. Would he > have owned Fawkes since then and not known: > 1)what a phoenix feather wand core would represent, > which should have been portentous? > 2)about priori incantatem? Dumbledore also had a phoenix wand... possibly of Nicholas Flamel's pet. (Making philosopher's stone? Must have a phoenix-core wand!) > Creating not one, but two wands seems deliberate. Not > apprising the owners of PI seems deliberate. > Deliberate and secretive, that's Dumbledore all over. > So, I'm speculating that Dumbledore anticipated and > set up Priori Incantatem. He was definitely involved, > and I think Trelawney's first prediction was the key. > Oh, he didn't know where and when PI would take place, > but he knew those two wands would clash someday, and > his motive was to give the good wizard a surviving > chance. A bit involved, yes. Song of a phoenix encourages those who are of pure heart and creates fear in those who are stained. It's tear's heal. Perfect pet for a pure-hearted witch or wizard. Few are those who manage to tame a phoenix... Are pure-hearted wizards who tried so rare? I think AD experienced PI himself - with Grindelwald. He managed to hold long enough for Grindelwald's wand to spit out ALL spells, including the one that created the wand - and THAT destroyed the wand altogether. (Harry felt his wand would be lost if he let the current go to his wand). > Dumbledore is aiding and supporting Harry, like the > prototypical Merlin did for Arthur. Did Harry really > just imagine hearing Dumbledore's voice through the > phoneix song during PI? Fawkes is really Dumbledore's > link to Harry. Book #1 - Dumbledore says something about knowing that the place he should be in was the place he just left... He arrived just in time to save Harry (who had used his Love-gives-pain-to-evil-spirit ability to fight all that time). Did Fawkes pass this information when the Trio was held by the plant? Book #2 - Harry's nearly dying, when Fawkes brings him the hat, and assists Harry many ways. Book#3... What woke Lupin up to save Harry? BTW... Is Lupin's core also a phoenix? A werewolf is not easy to kill, you know. Only by silver... He'd *survive* being shot by lead! Book#4 - obvious Don't you just love the little Phoenix? > Like Merlin, Dumbledore knows what > omens to pay attention to, and with a nudge here, a > tweak there, he can help things fall into place. > Which makes me curious as to what else Albus D. has up > his roomy robe sleeves. Get giants before Voldemort does.(Hagrid, Madame Maxime) What did Snape do - he was back in a week? Went to Voldemort pretending to be Bartolomeus Crouch who's not exactly dead so he could use Polyjuice? Possession of Crouch's body? Or something about Azkaban? The old crowd - Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, Mrs. Arabella Figg and Mundungus Fletcher. Hmm... Are they going to get Sirius free? Spread news that PP is alive, try to catch him, organise the long-lost trial for Sirius AND grant trials for others in Azkaban who didn't get one. If they weren't guilty, they'd join in out of gratitude. Muggles in? Would Bullet-proof jacket protect from AK? Or the classic, would an ordinary, Muggle-mirror reflect AK? And NO killing or we are no better than them! Dentists. Is someone going to get a protective amulet that requires a tooth? Some magic protects Harry while in care of his relations. I think AD told Dursleys that in the letter. When magic's used within the boundaries, this spell gives an alert and someone is bound to come - unless it's directed at the one making the magic (Harry wouldn't know because he was put into the cupboard). > Ama, who wonders why no-one ever talks about > Dumbledore's arrested look... Bad memories about fighting Grindelwald, I think... From bonnie at niche-associates.com Tue Mar 19 19:37:20 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:37:20 -0000 Subject: Odd parallels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36685 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > The bottom line is that Snape left his office with one important > piece of information -- that Lupin was headed toward the Shrieking > Shack. He didn't know about Black or the Trio at that point. The > desire to catch Lupin was the sole catalyst for Snape's actions. The > presence of the Trio (which Snape did not suspect until he arrived at > the Willow or confirm until he arrived at the Shack) did not cause > Snape to change his conduct at all, IMHO. So no, I don't think > Snape's motives were honorable. He wanted to get Lupin fired, and > that is the only reason he ventured out that night. > Now this got me thinking... I've noticed some interesting parallels between Shack Night and the Prank. For the Prank we have Snape trying to get Lupin in trouble and Sirius occasioning his entry into the tunnel. He is later saved by James. For Shack Night we have Snape trying to get Lupin in trouble again and Sirius occasioning his entry into the tunnel (indirectly, because Lupin went in when he saw Sirius go in). Snape must know that Lupin is on the verge of transforming (he saw he hadn't drunk his potion, and he knows what day it is), so for protection he dons James's Invisibility Cloak. I had always assumed that he put the cloak on for eavesdropping purposes, but at the mouth of the Whomping Willow, he didn't know there was anything to eavesdrop on (although he may have thought Lupin was going to meet Sirius). He must have been afraid of running into a werewolf again and therefore went into the situation invisible. Saved by James again, Severus. What do you think about that, ya oily git? Could this repetition tell us anything about the Prank? On Shack Night, Snape comes out convinced that Sirius has gotten away with murder when in fact he's innocent. No punishment, no dementor's kiss. But he's dead wrong. We don't really know why Sirius hates Snape so much, nor do we know what provoked him into sending Snape down the tunnel in the first place. Even though it's remembered as a prank by all parties, I don't think Sirius was just going to have a laugh at Snape's expense. I think he did something that in Sirius's eyes was worthy of some nasty revenge. And judging by what makes Sirius tick (loyalty) Snape probably betrayed someone Sirius cared about deeply. And I'm not necessarily talking about CUPID'S BLUDGER or any of those other Cock-Eyed Yet Entertaining theories. Snape could very easily have betrayed one of the Marauders. Wouldn't it be ironic if that person were Peter? And while we're on parallels, I noticed another one while skimming through GoF. We have The Trio (RHR), the anti-Trio (Malfoy and thugs), the previous-generation Trio (James, Remus, Sirius) and now a fourth: Dumbledore, McGonagall, Snape. I noticed them when they came barging in just as Crouch Jr. is about to do Harry in. It seems that Snape and McGonagall are Dumbledore's right- and left-hand men (so to speak). Not only are they the most prominently featured of the faculty (except the DADA teacher du jour), they seem to operate as Dumbledore's hit squad. But unlike the other trios, it's awfully easy to draw parallels between this trio and The Trio--McGonagall is obviously a parallel to Hermione and Dumbledore to Harry, leaving Ron in Snape's place. Hmmmm. Could that mean that Ron will indeed go bad then come back as a spy, unbeknownst to us, the anguishing readers? --Dicentra, who wonders if JKR is doing this on purpose From uncmark at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 20:07:23 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:07:23 -0000 Subject: FOR DISCUSSION: Wormtail's 'Silver' Hand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36686 Fron GofF Ch23: <> Weeks ago (can't find the post) I presented the theory that Lupin would be the foreshadowed death with Wormtail being his killer with his silver hand (deadly to werewolves). But by rereading, Wormtail's hand is not described as silver, but "of what looked like molten silver" ..."a gleaming replica of a human hand, bright as moonlight" So what is it? The pensieve is described as either "liquid or gas... a bright whitish silver... looked like light made liquid - or wind made solid - Harry couldn't make up his mind." Also Voldemort may be hinting it might be a check on Wormtail's loyalty. Could it be some form of Voldemort's thoughts given form in his servant's hand? It might enhance Wormtail's magic and give LV extra control and even extra vision as a magic camera that he might view from the safety of his lair while sending his spy out. I'd appreciate any input as I think the silver hand will be inpotant in later books. What do you think? Uncmark From uncmark at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 19:29:03 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:29:03 -0000 Subject: wand order In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36687 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "oboakk" wrote: > Meg wrote: > > I have a very recent US copy of GoF. The word never is in the scar > comment but the wand order is incorrect (James comes out first). Did > I just manage to pick up an old copy or does anyone else with a > recent US copy have the same thing? > > I am so extremely confused. > > > The GoF I bought my niece last year had Lily coming out first saying 'your father is coming' and so did the book on tape from the public library. The new CD book-on-tape in the library has the order right as does the newest copy I bought on-line for me. (no edition or printing number though) Uncmark From bonnie at niche-associates.com Tue Mar 19 20:24:16 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:24:16 -0000 Subject: Do people like SYCOPHANTS? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36688 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: Back to Eileen: > > > Now, I can take the pain given to weaker characters, and, being a > > FEATHERBOA, enjoy it, but my heart still goes out to every > > miserable fictional character that comes along. > > Eximia, the Western Bleeding Heart, which grows bountifully here in > the drizzly Green city of Portland, Oregon.> > ::Dicentra_spectabilis_alba looks at her name and over to the SYCOPHANTS charter, then over to her name again and realizes that she chose as an alias a freaking bleeding heart, which she is not. Then she hastens to clarify... :: Bleeding heart people may be old softies, but Dicentras are Tough in that they emerge in early spring, despite cold temperatures. (You Zone 7 folks and some Zone 6s should be seeing them right now.) They thrive in extremely poor soil (which my soil is) and get bigger and bigger every year. Yeah, the little flower sprigs are delicate enough, but the plant as a whole is a real trooper. Just out of curiosity, Elkins, does this pity you feel for SYCOPHANTS like Peter extend to Mercy? When you see Peter writhing on the floor, crying, do you want to comfort him, or are you content, though sad, to see him get his just desserts? --Dicentra, who probably shouldn't have mentioned dessert... From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 20:08:23 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:08:23 -0000 Subject: Neville's memory & Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36689 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., wrote: > Kitty espoused a theory I'm particularly fond of myself: > Yeah, at the risk of sentimentalizing Snape, I'd say the books do hint at this very possibility. Regardless of how mean Snape is to Neville, he's warm and fuzzy compared to Neville's own family. Uncle Algie literally endangers the child's life (multiple times) in order to smoke out his magical ability, which is one among several indications that adrenaline directly affects wizarding skills. And when Voldemort needed to break Bertha Jorkin's Memory Charm, he did it by repeatedly torturing her. So I've wondered many times whether Snape imagines that if he can either terrify or infuriate Neville enough that it'll break the charm. Doesn't that have Big Bangy potential? I wouldn't put it past Snape's degree of cunning, especially since... --- Yet it's obvious that kindness gets better results! See how good Neville is at herbology (prof. Sprout is *kind* to him!) or in Lupin's class! > Back to Neville again, I'm always amazed at the way Neville tells his own story towards the beginning of PS/SS. Quoted in part: > > "My Great Uncle Algie kept trying to catch me off my guard and force some magic out of me -- he pushed me off the end of Blackpool pier once, I nearly drowned -- but nothing happened until I was eight. Great Uncle Algie came round for dinner, and he was hanging me out of an upstairs window by the ankles when my Great Auntie Enid offered him a meringue and he accidentally let go. But I bounced -- all the way down the garden and into the road. They were all really pleased, Gran was crying, she was so happy." > > What does everyone make of the way Neville phrases it? Is this his black humor? Breezy stoicism? Abject emotional distance? If nothing else, he's not expecting sympathy from his listeners. His speech is the product of a culture whose idea up upbringing is quite merciless and unyielding. If Snape's own concept of education partakes of this same philosophy then it's quite possible that he does intend the best for Neville after all. Maybe the image of Snape in Gran's clothing symbolizes more that we first suspected... --- Trying to scare him - push him into a pool? Guess they tried to teach him swimming - and they *did* get him out. Besides, that was years ago - Neville's over it by now. Hagrid asked had Harry done any magic when *scared* or *angry*? That's when most magical children do it, but not Neville. That's when Neville does NOT do it. Anyway - It's NOT the way for Neville. He bravely and subconciously refuses to relent for someone trying to scare or hurt him. Absolutely. Kindness of the auntie offering treats leading to accidental death-threat - That's when Neville showed his magic. For the auntie. Harry's doing the same - but those he defies want him NOT use magic so he does. Now - Voldemort broke a memory charm with his crucio, but if Snape's taking a leaf out of Voldemort's book - it's not doing him any favor! Dumbledore, Sprout and Lupin taught with kindness - and Neville learned. Kindness serves better - but the likes of Snape fail to see that. From christi0469 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 19 21:24:47 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:24:47 -0000 Subject: Odd parallels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36690 Dicentra wrote, > For Shack Night we have Snape trying to get Lupin in trouble again and > Sirius occasioning his entry into the tunnel (indirectly, because > Lupin went in when he saw Sirius go in). Snape must know that Lupin > is on the verge of transforming (he saw he hadn't drunk his potion, > and he knows what day it is), so for protection he dons James's > Invisibility Cloak. I had always assumed that he put the cloak on for > eavesdropping purposes, but at the mouth of the Whomping Willow, he > didn't know there was anything to eavesdrop on (although he may have > thought Lupin was going to meet Sirius). He must have been afraid of > running into a werewolf again and therefore went into the situation > invisible. Saved by James again, Severus. What do you think about > that, ya oily git? I'm not sure that an invisibility cloak would be adequate protection from Lupin in wolf form. Sure, he might not be able to see Snape, but wouldn't wolfie be able to smell him? Especially as Snape does not seem fond of washing his hair? Christi From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Tue Mar 19 21:43:55 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:43:55 -0000 Subject: Odd parallels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36691 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "christi0469" wrote: > I'm not sure that an invisibility cloak would be adequate protection > from Lupin in wolf form. Sure, he might not be able to see Snape, > but wouldn't wolfie be able to smell him? Especially as Snape does > not seem fond of washing his hair? I agree; I don't think Snape had any illusions about the cloak keeping him safe from Lupin. I think he put it on because he the cloak's presence indicated that Harry was there, probably with Ron and Hermione, and he wanted to sneak up and see what they were up to before he started taking action. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From bonnie at niche-associates.com Tue Mar 19 20:14:34 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:14:34 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat / MoM Salaries / SnapeSnapeSnape / QWC / Animagi / Shrieki Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36692 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" > > Elkins wrote: > > > Hmmm. Lupin's reaction? Do you mean his charming "You should have > > realized if Voldemort didn't kill you, we would?" Or were you > > thinking more of Sirius' "you should have died rather than betray > > your friends" statement? (snip) That line of Sirius' has never > > made me feel too good either. I mean... > uncomfortably> I mean, of course we all like to *believe* that > > we'd die rather than betray our friends, don't we? But...well... > > I mean... > > That line of Lupin's is (to me) just fine. It's true and all. But I > completely agree with you about Sirius's statement. He has no right > to assert how he WOULD die, not having done so yet. Did Heinlein have > Lazarus Long say somewhere, no man should criticise another for not > dying well until he has died himself? I think that Sirius really would have died to save James, and letting everyone believe he was the Secret-Keeper is proof. He knew that becoming the Potters' Secret-Keeper made him Voldemort's prime target. Sirius probably thought that Voldemort would go after him, try to pry the secret out of him, eventually killing him in the process. By making someone else Secret-Keeper, Voldemort's killing or torturing Sirius would not put James in danger. Sirius's primary driving force is loyalty. It's loyalty to his promise to look after Harry that drives him to escape from Azkaban and risk capture and the Kiss. Heinlien's line is a good one, but I don't think it applies to this case. > > Besides that moral issue, there is a little nitpick of logic, similar > to the man who offered his friend first pick of the cookies and the > friend chose the biggest one and the man said: "That's rude! If I'd > picked first, I would have picked the other one" and the friend said: > "The one you would have picked is the one you got, so why are you > complaining?" Peter should have died to save James, just as James > would have died to save Peter. Well, James did die to save Peter, so > why are you complaining? I hope that was tongue-in-cheek. But just in case... James died, but Peter's life wasn't in danger, so James didn't save it. James died needlessly. That's what sticks in Sirius's craw. If James had died trying to save Peter, Sirius could accept it, but James died because Peter wanted to ingratiate himself to Voldemort. Hardly a fair trade. --Dicentra From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Mar 19 21:59:33 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:59:33 -0000 Subject: Do people like SYCOPHANTS? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36693 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > Their minions, on the other hand, don't even get that much. Not only > are they doomed to failure, they're also subject people even while > their own side is winning. And not only that, but even the authorial > voice often doesn't seem to care for them! If they're not cannon > fodder, pure and simple, then they're secondary villains that the > reader is supposed to roundly despise: they hardly ever get any cool > lines of dialogue, they rarely have a decent dress sense, they're > almost never good-looking, and their dignity is stripped from them as > a matter of course. Minions just get no respect or sympathy from > anyone: they're despised by their enemies and their evil overlords > alike. They're losers, through and through. If they die, they die in a disturbing ridiculous fashion. If they survive, they survive in a demeaning ridiculous fashion. Tolkien was an exception who gave his sycophants and neurotics the best death scenes in the book. And Gollum got some pretty interesting (if not snappy) dialogue too, plus more screen time than Sauron. But have you ever heard of one of the miserable ones living out his life productively afterwards? The closest I can get to is Smee being a nanny for the Indians and telling people that he was the only person James Hook ever feared. And that's still in the realms of the ridiculous. So, unless JKR is unique among all writers, we can safely assume that Avery and Pettigrew will get no pity. Authorial sympathy on the other hand.... I don't know. Pettigrew. Will Pettigrew have the famous Gollum/Smeagol scene where he finds Harry and Ron sleeping, reaches out to touch Harry, and is hexed by Ron who wakes up thinking Pettigrew's trying to kill Harry? (BTW, can't wait to see that in the Two Towers movie. I'll be crying volumes of tears.) Will JKR? I don't know. She's blackened Pettigrew's character grievously, but every once and a while there's a passage that makes me wonder if she feels for him. The line that most touched me in the whole book is "You look like James.", though, and I'm sure she meant that to demonstrate how devious Pettigrew was, shedding crocodile tears. > This is very similar to one of the questions proposed for discussion > at the end of the summary of Chapter Nineteen of PoA, back when this > list was still doing weekly chapter-by-chapter discussions of the > books. The question then, IIRC, was something along the lines > of: "Did you feel any sympathy for Pettigrew?" > > And I have to admit that I was *shocked* to read the responses. I > kept scrolling through the messages, reading "no," "no," "absolutely > not," "are you kidding me?" and the like, over and over and over > again, and my jaw was just dropping to the floor. I honestly could > not believe what I was seeing. I was in a different discussion group once upon a time, and was similarily shocked. The reason I think PoA is such a good book is that my stomach goes into a hard knot everytime I remember that scene. Each time I read it, I feel sick for Pettigrew. It's not because he's likeable. To answer Dicentra's question, I have no wish to cuddle Peter. But I couldn't kill him. I'd let him live, because I'm a bleeding heart. Perhaps, it's that thing called pity. I remember at an early age falling in love with this conversation of Tolkien's. "It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill Gollum when he had the chance." "Pity? Pity stayed his hand." "But he deserved to die." "Many who live deserve death, and many die who deserve life. Can you give it to them?" > I guess I must share your strangeness then, because for me, if > there's one person in the scene in fear for his life, then that's the > person who *always* gets the first claim on my sympathy. It doesn't > matter who it is or what he's done: the desire not to die is just so > compelling, so universal, so utterly *fundamental* that it garners > sympathy and identification as a matter of simple human default -- > very much as physical pain does. I could no more have withheld > identification from Pettigrew in Shrieking Shack than I could have > withheld it from Harry in the graveyard at the end of GoF (to take an > example in rather striking contrast when it comes to the character's > actual *behavior* in the face of imminent death). Agreed. The old cliche of Death the Leveler. But not only are people equals in Death, but they tend to equalize (in my psyche) when facing death. The Star Wars thing again. I don't mind when the stormtroopers go down because they don't ever come across as people to me with those outfits, and not much dialogue - snappy or otherwise. But I can't cheer or smirk when Darth Vader disposes of Needa and Ozzel, nor when the roof crashes in on Piett, or when Han and Luke shoot that guy who didn't believe their story on the Death Star, and that guy who called down to ask them why they weren't at their places. They come across as people for at least a moment in the story, and I just don't like seeing their faces when they die. Amuses my friends immensely. > I sympathized very deeply with Sirius and Remus, of course, but I > can't say that I was really identifying with either of them in the > same way. I wasn't feeling their rage. What I was feeling in regard > to them was pity, mixed with a very deep concern. I was fearful for > them and worried about them, and I wanted to protect them from > themselves -- which I suppose placed my reader identification far > closer to one with Harry in that scene. Ditto. > Hmmm. Lupin's reaction? Do you mean his charming "You should have > realized if Voldemort didn't kill you, we would?" Or were you > thinking more of Sirius' "you should have died rather than betray > your friends" statement? > > (Or...no. No, excuse me. What I really *meant* to say, of course, > was Sirius' "YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED RATHER THAN BETRAY YOUR FRIENDS" > statement. So sorry.) Oh sorry, I did mean Sirius. Lupin was charming all right, though. > That line of Sirius' has never made me feel too good either. I > mean... > > > > I mean, of course we all like to *believe* that we'd die rather than > betray our friends, don't we? But...well...I mean... > > > > > I mean, "Who doesn't crack every once and a while?" > > Yes! Exactly. It's not like Sirius was ever in the position of being tortured by a Dark Lord, is it? It's not thaaat fun. I'm sick and tired of virtuous characters never ever cracking. Like Princess Leia in Star Wars, who never told Darth Vader anything about the rebel base because she was the heroine, except when she was threatened with having her planet blown up, in which case she lied. ARGGGHH. Cracked characters in HP. Let me think. Bertha Jorkins. Bertha Jorkins definitely cracked. And she is portrayed heroically in the end, so I'll take this as a good sign. > Er...not to quibble, but haven't we *always* been "Soft?" I mean, > Eileen and I have always been the Bleeding Heart Sycophants around > here, haven't we? Neither of us has ever made the slightest claim to > Toughness. So I don't really know whether it's even *possible* for > us to "go" Soft. We started out that way. I was wondering whether we ever gave an impression of toughness to Cindy, and suddenly vaguely and blurrily remembered, under the influence of Cindy's bloodlust, jumping up and down and screaming "Bloody Ambush!" But, bloody ambush appreciation can co-exist with SYCOPHANTism. It's the Avery thing again. Avery who is both sickened and attracted by violence. > But as to Tom Riddle, of *course* he was misunderstood! He was > terribly misunderstood. After all, back in his student days, it > seems that just about everyone but Dumbledore thought that he was a > really nice guy. I'd call that a case of being fairly well > misunderstood. > > The poor dear. LOL! Despite the sob story about the evil Muggle father and the orphanage, Riddle really doesn't have much reason for turning out badly. > But how about Grima? No redemption scenario for poor old Grima > Wormtongue, the patron saint of sycophants? I couldn't stand Wormtongue as a child. Probably the intimation that he probably ate Lotho Pimple Sackville-Baggins (or was that just Saruman's slanders? He sure reacts guiltily.) That and the fact that our "tEWWW EWWWW tEWWW be trEWWW" gained many of its few converts because it reminded them of Grima Wormtongue's aim in life. (In fact, I remember someone on this list writing, "No. Snape's not nice. Not nice at all.") Still, the more I read it, the more I feel sorry for the guy. He didn't even get much respect when he was helpfully running Rohan for Theoden. The parallels are way too obvious, of course. "Wormtongue" vs. "Wormtail." Pathetic minions despised by their masters, who snivel a whole lot. Does it mean Pettigrew will kill Voldemort, not in a heroic burst of enthusiasm for Harry, but because he's fed up with V. ruining his life? Eileen From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Tue Mar 19 22:06:07 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:06:07 -0000 Subject: Why Snape went to the shack, apology meter (was Thanking Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36694 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > > The bottom line is that Snape left his office with one important > piece of information -- that Lupin was headed toward the Shrieking > Shack. He didn't know about Black or the Trio at that point. The > desire to catch Lupin was the sole catalyst for Snape's actions. The > presence of the Trio (which Snape did not suspect until he arrived at > the Willow or confirm until he arrived at the Shack) did not cause > Snape to change his conduct at all, IMHO. So no, I don't think > Snape's motives were honorable. He wanted to get Lupin fired, and > that is the only reason he ventured out that night. > What Dicentra said about this was far more interesting than what I am about to say, but I believe the above is incorrect. As I remember it, Snape believed that Lupin was helping (the escaped criminal) Black, and was following with the aim chiefly of catching Black and secondarily of proving Lupin's guilt. It wasn't about getting Lupin fired at that point. I also think that the apology meter is a little harsh. Snape is mean, but he was acting from correct motives as he saw the situation, and blundered, thus causing considerable damage. Harry and his friends also acted from essentially good motives, and caused a little unintentional damage. So, if Snape really owes Harry quite a big apology (since his main fault was not listening), then Harry owes Snape a little apology. David From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 20:45:52 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:45:52 -0000 Subject: FOR DISCUSSION: Wormtail's 'Silver' Hand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36695 Must say - good idea. Particularly as I think that to kill a werewolf, it must be *real* silver, as it is with Sickles. Also... I think wizards can't create silver - (and gold only with Philosopher's stone). It being the thought-thing... The sacrifice of the servant had to be *willingly given* - if Wormtail *ever* wills not to serve Voldemort, if his "loyalty ever wavers" - the hand will instantly either disappear bringing all the pain back, thus informing Voldemort of this disappearance. It might also kill Pettigrew the moment he *thinks* of being disloyal to Voldemort. Or- Wormtails thoughts can be summoned into it for any DE to see... How is Voldy going to react if he notices that Wormtail owes a life- debt to Harry Potter? That the flesh reviving him owes a life-debt to the blood resurrecting him? Hm... I think Voldemort wanted Harry's blood because Harry was the one who defeated him! And: a foe must be someone who you fought against. Someone who has stood up to you. - Actually, only Dumbledore and Harry Potter were *real* foes. Others fighting against Voldemort simply obeyed orders from Dumbledore (or Harry: Ron/Hermione). And Voldy knows well that he'll never capture Dumbledore - not with only Wormtail, Crouch and a body too weak to stand! From goddessa80 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 19 19:21:37 2002 From: goddessa80 at yahoo.com (A. Harr) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:21:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: Pre-Hogwarts Education Message-ID: <20020319192137.7632.qmail@web14507.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36696 Im hoping this topic hasn't come up, but if it has, please email me personally with your thoughts... its driven me nuts the past couple of days... I was talking with a home-schooled friend the other day, when a question popped into my head... how are wizarding children educated pre-Hogwarts? There is no mention of Wizarding elementary/primary schools, to my knowledge, so how do all the children know how to read and do arithmetic then? Are they educated by their parents and family? If so, how do they meet wizarding children of thier own age? It seems to me that they were all strangers when they arrive at Hogwarts, well, with the exception of Draco, Crabbe and Goyle. My guess is they met during little wizarding play-dates arranged at DE meetings or some such. Draco knew Ron of course, but only through what his father said. So then, what does that say about the social skills of wizarding children? Do they ever interact with each other? I never see references to old childhood friends, awful lot of relatives and parents mentioned but no best friends from Madam Elisstra's Primary School for the Magically Gifted or such. Anyone have any thoughts or references in canon that I might have missed? Adrienne goddessa80 at yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/ From PolgaraTheSorcess at hotmail.com Tue Mar 19 21:24:26 2002 From: PolgaraTheSorcess at hotmail.com (Polgara TheSorcess) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:24:26 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Odd parallels Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36697 >From: "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" >And while we're on parallels, I noticed another one while skimming >through GoF. We have The Trio (RHR), the anti-Trio (Malfoy and thugs), >the previous-generation Trio (James, Remus, Sirius) and now a fourth: >Dumbledore, McGonagall, Snape. >But unlike the other trios, it's awfully easy to draw parallels >between this trio and The Trio--McGonagall is obviously a parallel to >Hermione and Dumbledore to Harry, leaving Ron in Snape's place. >Hmmmm. Could that mean that Ron will indeed go bad then come back as >a spy, unbeknownst to us, the anguishing readers? Interesting. I have never noticed that parallel before. However, since I am a firm believer that Ron will never go over to the dark side, I propose another theory. What if JKR is using the parallel to give us some hints about Snape? >From the chess game in PS we know that Ron is brillant at coming up with strategies and that he would sacrifice himself in order for others to keep on going (I believe Ron really thought he was going to be chopped to pieces). As a "cunning" Slytherin and a former spy, Snape must know a lot about how to deceive his enemies, an important ability for a good strategist. Perhaps part of Snape's role in the whole scheme is to be Dumbledore's "brain" so to speak? After all, Dumbledore has a school to run, ministry to persuade, allies to contact, etc. He needs someone else to help him devise battle plans against Voldemort, and no one better than Snape would have an intimate knowledge of how Death Eaters like to operate. >From that theory, I predict further that Snape would eventually attempt to sacrifice himself in hopes that his demise would help their side to win. However, since Ron didn't actually die in PS and because I am a Snape fan, he would not be the one who dies in the upcoming books. Maybe seriously injured, but not dead. What do people think? Polgara _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From wmj007 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 19 20:28:48 2002 From: wmj007 at hotmail.com (engbama) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:28:48 -0000 Subject: Grindelwald?? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36698 Maybe I'm a little behind the times here but who is Grindelwald? I haven't seen that name anywhere in the books. Any help will be greatly appreciated. ENGineer at the University of AlaBAMA graduating in May. From chynarose8 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 19 22:15:26 2002 From: chynarose8 at hotmail.com (Michelle Strauss) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:15:26 -0500 Subject: Wolf Senses (was Re: Odd parallels) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36699 Dicentra had brought up the point that Snape took the invisibility cloak in order to escape Wearwolf Lupin. Christi then pointed out: I'm not sure that an invisibility cloak would be adequate protection from Lupin in wolf form. Sure, he might not be able to see Snape, but wouldn't wolfie be able to smell him? Especially as Snape does not seem fond of washing his hair? And I have to agree. Wolves *do* have a better sense of smell than humans. They can smell things that most humans don't even *think* has a smell to begin with. Dogs have been trained to detect thousands of varrious scents from large amounts of mint ink, to minute amounts of drugs, to food (big surprise there huh?) to humans that have passed days ago. And the dogs chosen for those jobs are not always derivitives of the hound breeds. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Tue Mar 19 23:20:22 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:20:22 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Grindelwald?? References: Message-ID: <3C97C7B6.B13BE555@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36700 engbama wrote: > > Maybe I'm a little behind the times here but who is Grindelwald? I > haven't seen that name anywhere in the books. Any help will be > greatly appreciated. > Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald in 1945 - and some have speculated the Grindelwald was Hitler. Look in SS/PS where Harry and Ron are on the train to Hogwarts. Harry opens a chocolate frog with Dumbledore on the cards, and in his description you'll see a reference to Grindelwald. -Katze From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Mar 19 22:10:03 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:10:03 -0000 Subject: Sorting Hat / MoM Salaries / SnapeSnapeSnape / QWC / Animagi / Shrieki Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36701 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: > I think that Sirius really would have died to save James, and letting > everyone believe he was the Secret-Keeper is proof. He knew that > becoming the Potters' Secret-Keeper made him Voldemort's prime target. > Sirius probably thought that Voldemort would go after him, try to pry > the secret out of him, eventually killing him in the process. By > making someone else Secret-Keeper, Voldemort's killing or torturing > Sirius would not put James in danger. Sirius's primary driving force > is loyalty. It's loyalty to his promise to look after Harry that > drives him to escape from Azkaban and risk capture and the Kiss. Ah, I don't think you've got our bleeding heart way of looking at the world yet. You see, we bleeding hearts do not believe that good intentions success make. We like to believe that you can be 100% loyal and still betray your friends under pressure. We cast around hopelessly for heroes who will prove our point of view, and find quite a few in real life, but very few in fiction, with the exception of Frodo Baggins who cracked most delightfully (and also was sympathetic towards the plights of SYCOPHANTS.) The mechanics of the Secret Keeper charm may guard against torture, but Sirius's "You should have died..." bit still doesn't sit well. He may have had the option not to crack in this specific case, but if Voldemort catches him tomorrow and does horrible things to him, will Sirius Black keep quiet all Dumbledore's plans? I don't think so. Eileeen PS. Cindy, there's a lot of hollering for memory charms going on. Could you do something about it? Memory charms are too obvious and not nearly as BIG BANGISH as your scenario. From cindysphynx at comcast.net Tue Mar 19 23:40:40 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:40:40 -0000 Subject: Do people like SYCOPHANTS? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36702 Eileen wrote (about her supply of pity): > > Is this wide-spread phenomenon? Or are we only a few whose supply > > of pity is infinite? Elkins wrote (of the plight of minions): >If they're not cannon > fodder, pure and simple, then they're secondary villains that the > reader is supposed to roundly despise: they hardly ever get any cool > lines of dialogue, they rarely have a decent dress sense, they're > almost never good-looking, and their dignity is stripped from them as > a matter of course. . . . They're losers, through and through. Aw, I know what you're thinking. Cindy is just going to taunt Elkins and Eileen for their defense of weak characters. It's going to be ugly, you're saying to yourself. That Cindy is so mean, you're muttering under your breath. Actually, no taunting. Not this time. I can kind of relate to what Elkins is saying here. Weak characters are kind of pitiful, almost by definition. Where I have trouble, though, is the idea that there is plenty of sympathy, empathy and pity to go around. Take the Shack, for instance. When it is the Trio versus Sirius, we're all routing for the Trio and no one feels sympathy or empathy with Sirius. (Right?) Even when Harry is standing over him threatening to blast Sirius. (Right?) Then it becomes Lupin, Sirius and the Trio versus Pettigrew. Although Elkins makes a mighty fine case for Pettigrew needing some sympathy and all, the problem I have is that I have a limited reservoir of sympathy and empathy. It's a zero sum game for me. To have some feelings for Pettigrew, I have to take those feelings away from the other characters. And in the Shrieking Shack, there's just no room for that. Lupin is staking a claim to sympathy in a Big way, Sirius is doing the same, Harry always is entitled to some, and Ron has a broken leg. Where am I supposed to find some extra sympathy for Pettigrew? Now the graveyard is completely different. Cedric has just been killed. Harry is tied to a gravestone with a filthy rag in his mouth, but compared to what happened to Cedric, that isn't so bad. Pettigrew, though. Pettigrew is cutting off his *hand*. And we know how difficult this must be for him. Indeed, the author laid a foundation in the first chapter that this would happen, and then she explained Pettigrew's inability to refuse Voldemort in Harry's dream. So there's some sympathy to be had for little Peter there. And as soon as I was sure Harry was in a world of hurt, my sympathy for Peter evaporated. Elkins again: > I guess I must share your strangeness then, because for me, if > there's one person in the scene in fear for his life, then that's the > person who *always* gets the first claim on my sympathy. It doesn't > matter who it is or what he's done: the desire not to die is just so > compelling, so universal, so utterly *fundamental* that it garners > sympathy and identification as a matter of simple human default -- > very much as physical pain does. Interesting. Then does this mean that Crouch Jr. had your sympathy when the dementor sucked out his soul? How about Buckbeak, and by extension, Hagrid? Elkins again (on Sirius' Big Line) > ("YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED RATHER THAN BETRAY YOUR FRIENDS" > statement.) > > That line of Sirius' has never made me feel too good either. > Oh, Sirius didn't really *mean* that. I mean, he just meant that he didn't really buy Peter's story that Voldemort forced him to do it. True, Sirius risks his life repeatedly for his friends. But then again, we haven't seen Sirius knowingly walk into a situation where he is facing a substantial risk of death. He faced Peter in a duel, but Sirius should have won. Sirius hangs around Hogwarts, but he's able to do it as a dog. He comes back from his warm-weather hideout to be close to Harry, but he stays well-hidden. So, yeah, I think Sirius is blustering on there just a bit. But that's OK, because Sirius is Dead Sexy. Cindy (who thinks we need an apology meter *and* a pity meter) From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Mar 19 23:52:57 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:52:57 -0000 Subject: Do people like SYCOPHANTS? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36703 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > When it is the Trio versus Sirius, we're all routing for > the Trio and no one feels sympathy or empathy with Sirius. (Right?) > Even when Harry is standing over him threatening to blast Sirius. > (Right?) Errr.... no. I did feel sorry for Sirius. I started feeling sorry for Sirius at the point where Lupin asks "Does anyone deserve it?" and continued till I discovered he wasn't the bad guy. > And in the Shrieking Shack, there's just > no room for that. Lupin is staking a claim to sympathy in a Big way, > Sirius is doing the same, Harry always is entitled to some, and Ron > has a broken leg. Where am I supposed to find some extra sympathy > for Pettigrew? But Pettigrew's the only one facing immediate death. Like Elkins, my pitymeter tends to work on that little fact. > Interesting. Then does this mean that Crouch Jr. had your sympathy > when the dementor sucked out his soul? Yes! I found Crouch Jr. at the end extremely pitiful and pitiable. >How about Buckbeak, and by > extension, Hagrid? I can't work up that sort of sympathy about fictional animals. Sorry. It was sad Buckbeak was going to get killed, but I never related to Buckbeak as a character. In real life, it's different. How many people have backed away from killing a carpenter ant not because of the "eww" factor, but because it's trying so hard to escape from you and live? Eileen From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Tue Mar 19 23:55:34 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:55:34 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, Keeper of the Keys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36704 In message no 36547, I introduced a pile of predictions and tried to pass them off as being vaguely supported by symbolic interpretations. This is the first of my wacky interpretations. Most of the canon interpretation that I have done here has been analytical, trying to get the main outlines from a riot of colourful detail. This feels to me to be the opposite, deliberately turning up the gain on the colour knob and ignoring the logic, playing up the trees and ignoring the wood. Hagrid is introduced in PS as the Keeper of the Keys at Hogwarts, and that is the title of the relevant chapter. In practical terms, we never see him exercise this role in the first four books. In *symbolic* terms, however, he does this a great deal both for Harry and the reader. If we think of him as introducing Harry to new themes and places, he is constantly popping up. He introduces Harry to the Dursleys, and then to the magical world. He introduces all new students to Hogwarts - this is emphasised as there is no practical reason for them not using the carriages like the older students. He is the first to tell Harry of Voldemort. He is instrumental in Harry's first Hogwarts meeting with Voldemort, in the Forbidden Forest. Indeed he introduces Harry to the FF itself, a metaphor for the unconscious if ever I saw one: dark, secret, forbidden, full of mysteries and monsters. (I will try to address the implications of meeting V first there another time.) It is from him we first learn of Hogsmeade. When Harry gets lost in Knockturn Alley, it is Hagrid who provides the way back. He starts the process of Harry getting to know his parents, by getting the photo album at the end of PS. In PS he raises the issue of wizarding blood, central to COS. He goes to Azkaban late in COS, introducing a key theme for POA. In POA he goes to London to get Buckbeak off, and is treated unjustly, foreshadowing the Pensieve scenes (which I see as central to GOF). His function can be used for bad as well as good: he is the key for Quirrell to get to the stone. There are some interesting consequences of this. Fifty years earlier, Riddle framed him, and Dumbledore intervened to keep him at Hogwarts. In other words, right from before the start of the series, there was an attempt to damage this role. Three times he has introduced Harry to dragons: at Gringotts, with Norbert, and then the Horntail. I would therefore expect dragons to play a crucial role in a future book. (People have already pointed out that dragons guard Gringotts, one Weasley works there and another works with dragons suggesting a future plot tie-in.) At the end of GOF he is sent on a mission by Dumbledore, with Maxime. That signals to me that Harry will go on a mission, most probably in the next book, and likely accompanied by a companion, outside Hogwarts. I will pick this up in a future post about Harry and the feminine. What of his bumbling and drinking? I believe this is related to Voldemort's early attack on him. The Keeper of the Keys is damaged, and functions defectively, still mostly but not always for good. Most portentously of all, one of his guises in PS is as a ferryman in charge of a three-headed dog, suggesting to me that he is foreshadowing the full arc of Harry's life and death. To emphasise this properly, he ought by rights to die himself, either just before Harry, or as foreshadowing at the end of Book 6. OK, thoughts? David From pennylin at swbell.net Wed Mar 20 00:17:42 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny & Bryce) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:17:42 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pre-Hogwarts Education References: <20020319192137.7632.qmail@web14507.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3C97D526.6080302@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36705 Hi -- A. Harr wrote: > Im hoping this topic hasn't come up, but if it has, > please email me personally with your thoughts... its > driven me nuts the past couple of days... > > I was talking with a home-schooled friend the other > day, when a question popped into my head... how are > wizarding children educated pre-Hogwarts? There is no > mention of Wizarding elementary/primary schools, to my > knowledge, so how do all the children know how to read > and do arithmetic then? Are they educated by their > parents and family? If so, how do they meet wizarding > children of thier own age? A great place to get started on this particular topic is: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/hogwarts.html There have also been some discussions since that FAQ was written -- searching the Message archives for keywords like primary school, home-school, etc. will probably yield those messages. None of the above is meant to discourage discussions on this topic, but rather to introduce new members to concepts & theories that have already been discussed. It might provide a good jumping-off point to what we've already talked about. :--) Personally, I'm more concerned with why they don't seem to need to *further* their education in basic subjects like literature, music, math, languages, etc. once they reach Hogwarts. I'd like to hear that Hogwarts does have some traditional subjects as electives if nothing else. I know we've talked about how they use math in arithmancy, astronomy & divination, science in potions, etc. .... but I wish JKR might clarify that more in the next book. Penny From siskiou at earthlink.net Wed Mar 20 00:30:05 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:30:05 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Odd parallels In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61233400052.20020319163005@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36706 Hi, Tuesday, March 19, 2002, 11:37:20 AM, dicentra_spectabilis_alba wrote: > But unlike the other trios, it's awfully easy to draw parallels > between this trio and The Trio--McGonagall is obviously a parallel to > Hermione and Dumbledore to Harry, leaving Ron in Snape's place. > Hmmmm. Could that mean that Ron will indeed go bad then come back as > a spy, unbeknownst to us, the anguishing readers? I don't think so, unless his personality changes dramatically in the future. Even when he was angry with Harry, Ron didn't get nasty and make fun of him along with others, he just didn't talk to him. And I can't see Ron be good spy material. He is not good at keeping his feelings hidden. Look at the example of using the polyjuice to transform into Crabbe and Goyle. Several times he would have betrayed himself to Draco, if Harry hadn't reminded him. While I can see Ron change somewhat, I still don't believe he'd ever work for Voldemort, become a death eater, or otherwise turn. Now, I hope JKR will not go that way, because that would truly ruin the whole series for me, along with Ron, Harry or Hermione dying. Maybe I should have waited until the 7th book was finished before getting involved . I'm the type of reader who checks the last few pages of a book to find out if it ends "right". -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Tue Mar 19 23:25:37 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:25:37 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's role in Priori Incantatem References: <20020319165142.16293.qmail@web20403.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3C97C8F1.679C7D4A@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36707 ladjables wrote: > > Hi everyone, > Forgive me if this seems completely obvious/unlikely, > but I believe Dumbledore had a hand in Priori > Incantatem (PI). > > I've never considered Dumbledore omniscient, any more > than I would consider him oblivious. But now Fawkes > is on my mind, or rather his tail-feathers are. How > significant is it that two feathers from Dumbledore's > pet form the cores of Harry's and Voldemort's wands? > I can't accept mere coincidence. > I've been thinking about this. It is rare that the PI would happen, so I'd think that not many people would know about it, as you suggested. How would D know about it? We know he's powerful, and knowledgeable - enough to bring down Grindelwald. I'm beginning to wonder if there was a link between Grindelwald and D, just like Harry and V? Perhaps G and D had brother wands? I completely agree that it wasn't mere coincidence. -Katze From laura-russell at juno.com Wed Mar 20 00:24:11 2002 From: laura-russell at juno.com (Laura O Russell) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:24:11 -0500 Subject: please unsubscribe me Message-ID: <20020319.192607.-3689319.0.Laura-Russell@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36708 unsubscribe ________________________________________________________________ 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 huntleyl at mssm.org Wed Mar 20 01:01:22 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:01:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldie's foes WAS: wormtail's "silver" hand References: Message-ID: <001901c1cfaa$c0971000$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 36709 finwitch said: >Actually, only Dumbledore and Harry Potter were *real* foes. Others >fighting against Voldemort simply obeyed orders from Dumbledore (or >Harry: Ron/Hermione). I think this assertion is entirely unfair to the hundreds, possibly thousands, of brave witches and wizards who sacrificed or were willing to sacrifice their lives to stop dear old Voldie. Do you think that Mad Eye would have hesitated to fight the rise of the Dark Lord without Dumbledore's tender guidance? What about the army of other aurors? Surely not all of them were fighting a very dangerous fight indeed, just because a very good man "ordered" them to. Not to mention people like the Weasleys and the Potters...I don't think that people such as these would have sat back and let Voldemort take over, if not for Dumbledore's presence. I am of the opinion that, while Dumbledore was a strong leader in the battle against Voldemort, he was *not* the only leader, nor did all instructions come directly from him. Crouch Sr., especially, seems to have had little influence from Dumbledore. A war such as the one fought against the Death Eaters is a very individualized war. Perhaps wizards who first opted to stay neutral on the subject joined the side of the light after family member/they personally/etc. were attacked by D.E.s...This decision would be theirs and certainly no one else's. Furthermore, perhaps during parts of PS/SS Ron and Hermione were acting against V. because of Harry, simply because they did not yet recognize the severity of the problem, but during the other three books, they make conscious, individual decisions to fight V. without Harry's help or input. If anyone in their trio is a leader in the triumvirate's battle against L.V., it's Hermione. As far as issuing orders, she is usually the one who guides the boys through many tactical strategies. It's not Harry who makes them take the polyjuice potion to stop the Heir, neither is it Harry who spends hours in the library, researching answers to the problems the trio faces. Harry doesn't ask her to do this, she simply takes initiative. Ron, too, I believe, would act against Voldie whether Harry was there or not. Anyway, the point is, I really don't believe that only Dumbledore and Harry count as V's only foes. Certainly, they are not even his only *serious* foes. Think of the aurors such as Mad Eye who took out so many of his precious Death Eaters, and Crouch, whose evils against the D.E. cause are innumerable. Perhaps he feels they are more *personal* foes, but as far as the potion went, I don't believe it would have made a difference. In fact, as so many have speculated, using Harry's blood may have been Voldie's undoing. laura "...we will live forever, or die by suicide." - Abraham Lincoln [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From uncmark at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 01:54:48 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 01:54:48 -0000 Subject: HRH vs Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle (Was Snape & Neville's Memory) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36710 Concerning Snapes' attitude towards Neville, Harry and Wizard education in general --- In HPforGrownups at y..., wrote: > Part of the reason Snape is so heartlessly cruel to Neville could > be because he doesn't agree with coddling Neville and fuzzing out > the ugly truth. Maybe he thinks he can jog Neville's memory by > antagonizing him. > > Yeah, at the risk of sentimentalizing Snape, I'd say the books do > hint at this very possibility. Regardless of how mean Snape is to > Neville, he's warm and fuzzy compared to Neville's own family. > Uncle Algie literally endangers the child's life (multiple times) > in order to smoke out his magical ability, which is one among > several indications that adrenaline directly affects wizarding > skills. Excuse me? the Longbottom's uncle may have physically egdangered him, but Snape emotionally abuses Neville and the other Griffindors daily. > I've wondered many times whether Snape imagines that if he can > either terrify or infuriate Neville enough that it'll break the > charm. Doesn't that have Big Bangy potential? I wouldn't put it > past Snape's degree of cunning, especially since... So we're to believe he mistreats the Gryffindors out of kindness? One flaw in that plan, shouldn't he also mistreat the Slytherin's to encourage the same growth? Kitty wrote: > > Another way he deals with the kids is by being nice to Malfoy & > co. Give them false sense of security so that they trust him and > he can manipulate them later. Also doesn't hurt for those rotten > little boys to tell their DE dads how Snape is wonderfully evil and > baits HP. Different motives for why he treats different kids the > ways he does. When you look at the two trios you see a catch-22 in Snape's method. (This may go back to the Griffyndor/Slytherin philosphies of Bravery/Ambition) Harry, Ron, and Hermione, compared to Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle have faced more challenges and will continue to face more them. Curiously, HRH are motivated to learn more through selfless action than MCG are throu selfish ambition. In SS, HRH as true rookies face mortal danger as ELEVEN YEAR OLDS. To look for the Sorceror's stone, they face dangers that scare off adult DE's. In PofA MCG do nothing while the Heir of Slytherin terrorizes Hogwarts. More importantly, Hermione faces petrification and Harry & Ron face almost sure death for Ginny. By PofA, Harry has advanced enough to learn Patronus which is above OWL level (5th year). Malfoy? He's advanced to the point of faking an injury. Finally in GofF, Hermione and Ron rally behind Harry allowing themselves to be targets as Harry learns Stupify. Malfoy's acheivement? He's stupid enough to challenge HRH when Harry has successfully faced Voldemort and the assembled Death Eaters without backing down. To see it another way, Compare Hagrid and Snape's teaching style. Hagrid, while he does beed improvement, treats his student fairly and avoids the pettiness of subtracting points for every little disrespect. Snape defines pettiness and favoritism for the Slytherins. In PofA & GoF, Hagrid faces great crisis when his job is threatened over Buckbeak & Malfoy's injury AND in GoF over Rita Skeetre's expose of his heritage. In both instances HRH went to bat for him, never losing hope. Can you imqagine if Rita targeted Snape for outing in GoF? DEATHEATER SPY TEACHING POTIONS AT HOGWARTS! OFTEN THREATENS TO POISON STUDENTS AND ENCOURAGES DUELLING! Couyld you imagine MCG going to bat for their Housemaster? I can picture Malfoy watching as Snape is given the wizard equivalent of being Tarred & Feathered saying "What's in it for me?' Uncmark From degroote at altavista.com Wed Mar 20 02:21:04 2002 From: degroote at altavista.com (Vicky DeGroote) Date: 19 Mar 2002 18:21:04 -0800 Subject: Arabella Figg Message-ID: <20020320022104.11530.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36711 An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From bonnie at niche-associates.com Wed Mar 20 02:24:43 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 02:24:43 -0000 Subject: Sirius's Big Line In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36712 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" > wrote: > > > I think that Sirius really would have died to save James, and > letting > > everyone believe he was the Secret-Keeper is proof. He knew that > > becoming the Potters' Secret-Keeper made him Voldemort's prime > target. > > Sirius probably thought that Voldemort would go after him, try to > pry > > the secret out of him, eventually killing him in the process. By > > making someone else Secret-Keeper, Voldemort's killing or torturing > > Sirius would not put James in danger. Sirius's primary driving > force > > is loyalty. It's loyalty to his promise to look after Harry that > > drives him to escape from Azkaban and risk capture and the Kiss. > > Ah, I don't think you've got our bleeding heart way of looking at the > world yet. You see, we bleeding hearts do not believe that good > intentions success make. We like to believe that you can be 100% loyal > and still betray your friends under pressure. We cast around > hopelessly for heroes who will prove our point of view, and find quite > a few in real life, but very few in fiction, with the exception of > Frodo Baggins who cracked most delightfully (and also was sympathetic > towards the plights of SYCOPHANTS.) > > The mechanics of the Secret Keeper charm may guard against torture, > but Sirius's "You should have died..." bit still doesn't sit well. He > may have had the option not to crack in this specific case, but if > Voldemort catches him tomorrow and does horrible things to him, will > Sirius Black keep quiet all Dumbledore's plans? I don't think so. > The situations aren't parallel. Peter wasn't tortured into betraying the Potters, he did it because he wanted to (though he might have told himself something else). Sirius decided not to go over to the Dark Side (don't know if he was tempted) and would have opted to die rather than betray James. Voldemort might not have given Sirius that option, but he would have chosen it given the chance. Peter wouldn't. To make the situation parallel, Peter would have to have joined the DEs under duress, but he didn't. The DEs might use Crucio or Imperio to get people to do some of their dirty work, but Voldemort's not going to put his Mark on someone who Cracks, is he? No, Sirius is made of better stuff than Peter. Muuuch better stuff. --Dicentra, who will now stop to think about this better stuff From porphyria at mindspring.com Wed Mar 20 03:43:38 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:43:38 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] HRH vs Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle (Was Snape & Neville's Memory) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36713 Kitty and I were discussing whether or not Snape's cruel attitude towards Neville might have some hidden benefit for his memory, his magical development, whatever. I said: << Yeah, at the risk of sentimentalizing Snape, I'd say the books do hint at this very possibility. Regardless of how mean Snape is to Neville, he's warm and fuzzy compared to Neville's own family. Uncle Algie literally endangers the child's life (multiple times) in order to smoke out his magical ability, which is one among several indications that adrenaline directly affects wizarding skills. >> And Uncmark replied: << Excuse me? the Longbottom's uncle may have physically endangered him, but Snape emotionally abuses Neville and the other Griffindors daily. >> Well, for starters, I think dropping a child out of a window or off a pier is much worse than insulting him, especially when he's 11 and he's already used to stern treatment from his elders. I'm not sure how you can justify Uncle Algie as 'not so bad' if that is in fact what you are trying to do. Furthermore, I'm quite aware of the fact that my reading that 'Snape might have Neville's best interests in mind' is counter-intuitive, nonsensical in real life, and perhaps quite mistaken. It's intended as an ironic reading, right or wrong. Apart from the canonical examples I cited, I am also situating this reading within JKR's Potterverse, which is very different from ours. For one thing, characters are often the opposite of what they seem and their motives are often misconstrued in canon. So I don't think it's totally off base to wonder if a given situation is exactly the opposite from the way it appears. For another think, JKR has a pretty black sense of humor, and I think my theory does too. Tormenting Neville for his own good is just as funny (or unfunny, depending on your taste) as chopping up and stewing anthropomorphic Mandrakes, IMO. More importantly, the Potterverse has a completely different set of mores and norms than ours. In many ways it's more Medieval, more honor bound and much tougher. For a better description of this, you should go back to an old post of Elkins, #34421, where she describes the Warrior Ethos of wizarding culture and how un-squeamish they are about violence and physical risk and how much they loathe timidity and cowardice. To me this indicates that we shouldn't judge Snape, Algie, Gran or anyone else by literal, real-world standards. Let me say *very* quickly that this in no way implies that I think Elkins agrees with my theory about Neville and Snape! Somehow I doubt she does. ;-) It's just that I think her observation about the Warrior Ethos was really brilliant and well put. There are degrees to this theory. If the idea that, deep down inside, Snape has nothing but warm fuzzy feelings for Neville and the rest of the Gryffs is just too sickening for you to bear, and I think I might even agree, there is still the possibility that there might be an inadvertent benefit to Neville (and an interesting plot device) if he gets a giant adrenaline rush in a future book, and that if Snape is the cause it might be entirely accidental. This saves us from attributing anything but malice to Snape, but it still makes use of the many associations the book makes between memory charm, magical ability in general, and suffering. Anyway, Uncmark also wrote: << So we're to believe he mistreats the Gryffindors out of kindness? One flaw in that plan, shouldn't he also mistreat the Slytherin's to encourage the same growth? >> I think you might have misunderstood what Kitty and I were agreeing on, because we were both theorizing that he *does not* mistreat the Slytherin because he doesn't care if they toughen up or not. He *wants* to weaken them, see? Again, this theory might be far fetched and OOC for Snape, and I'm the last person to argue it isn't. But I could make the same tweak I just did above and say that regardless of whom Snape really likes, the effect is the same. And then I'd be agreeing with everything you said: << Harry, Ron, and Hermione, compared to Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle have faced more challenges and will continue to face more them. Curiously, HRH are motivated to learn more through selfless action than MCG are throu selfish ambition. >> This, and the rest of your post, I completely agree on. Then again, of course HRH are heroic, selfless, brave and giving. That's the whole point, right? I think the real problem is the Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle are not sufficiently strong enough adversaries for HRH for dramatic appeal. You are right that they never bother taking a stand for anything, and they don't appear tough enough to do so. I actually find it a bit of a flaw that 'selfish ambition,' so far, hasn't been portrayed as that powerful or enticing a path for the students. It should be a little more seductive, shouldn't it? So HRH can bravely resist? Just a thought. ~~Porphyria From editor at texas.net Wed Mar 20 03:46:14 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:46:14 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Odd parallels References: Message-ID: <007901c1cfc1$c9b98160$397d63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36714 Dicentra spake thusly: > Now this got me thinking... I've noticed some interesting parallels > between Shack Night and the Prank. For the Prank we have Snape trying > to get Lupin in trouble and Sirius occasioning his entry into the > tunnel. He is later saved by James. > > For Shack Night we have Snape trying to get Lupin in trouble again and > Sirius occasioning his entry into the tunnel (indirectly, because > Lupin went in when he saw Sirius go in). Snape's primary motivation was not to get Lupin in trouble, so much as to collar Sirius (pun intended, sorry, couldn't resist). That Lupin seemed to be involved, just as Snape had believed, was gravy. > Snape must know that Lupin > is on the verge of transforming (he saw he hadn't drunk his potion, > and he knows what day it is), so for protection he dons James's > Invisibility Cloak. I had always assumed that he put the cloak on for > eavesdropping purposes, but at the mouth of the Whomping Willow, he > didn't know there was anything to eavesdrop on (although he may have > thought Lupin was going to meet Sirius). No, but he *did* suddenly realize that Harry could be down there. It's clear from his comment to Harry when he decloaks that he knows darn well whose cloak it must be now. So I think he put it on as an extra "edge" until he could case the situation and determine the best course of action. > He must have been afraid of > running into a werewolf again and therefore went into the situation > invisible. Saved by James again, Severus. What do you think about > that, ya oily git? Hardly. Snape clearly considers himself enough to take on both Sirius and Lupin; he does. All the Cloak did was let him be more choosy about picking his moment. As I said, though, the cloak lying there *would* have tipped him off to the fact that Harry was in there, too. And regardless of his primary motivation (to catch Sirius and prove Lupin's complicity), Snape was *also* trying to get (at the very least) Harry out of the situation. I won't for a minute pretend he wasn't aware that saving the kids would augment the acclaim for catching Sirius & Lupin; he'd have to be an idiot. But the point is, he was more than willing to face two very dangerous wizards uncloaked. I doubt he thought the cloak was anything more than a handy aid. In fact, he probably sees it as a balance, rather than two for James--James saved him from the werewolf, now he saves James' son--twice he says to Harry that he's saving him: "Get out of the way, Potter, you're in enough trouble already," snarled Snape. "If I hadn't been here to save your skin ---" (PoA, 360 [US]), and "Like father, like son, Potter! I have just saved your neck; you should be thanking me on bended knee!.." (PoA, 361 [US]). When Snape speaks to Hermione, a page earlier, he says only that she is out of bounds and facing suspension. It is to Harry that he speaks of having saved him, and he says it twice. In the truest sense of the heat of passion, too; this must resonate deeply for him. It must gall the hell out of him that Harry doesn't acknowledge it, even in passing. But the point is that Snape would not have considered this as James' bailing him out again. Far from it. Nor can I; Snape wasn't using the cloak for protection and would have confronted Sirius and Lupin without it. > I don't think Sirius was just going to have a laugh at > Snape's expense. I think he did something that in Sirius's eyes was > worthy of some nasty revenge. And judging by what makes Sirius tick > (loyalty) Snape probably betrayed someone Sirius cared about deeply. This I will give you, to a degree. Althought Sirius' character has a bit of the impulsive to it, much of that feeling comes from this very source. It's possible that at sixteen he simply didn't think of the consequences, but maybe he did and judged it worth it, based on the offense. [whether this was his to judge is another argument entirely.] We have, for a detailed description of the "prank," mostly Snape's fleshing it out, and Snape has been known to misinterpret things before. Once or twice. --Amanda, B.S. From uncmark at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 04:41:38 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 04:41:38 -0000 Subject: Arabella Figg In-Reply-To: <20020320022104.11530.cpmta@c016.snv.cp.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36715 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Vicky DeGroote wrote: > JKR has confirmed that Arabella Figg and Mrs. Fiig are on in the > same. As far as I can rememeber, that's all she confirmed about > her though. Of course, this group has made it's own speculations > about her and are anxious to learn more about her. Some of the > ones I can remember (& some are my own) the theories have been: > > *She's an animagi & the cats living with her are animagi, placed > there to hang out near Harry and protect them. All the cats? According to Hermione in PofA there are only 7 registered animagi this century, one of which is McGonagall. It's generally accepted that she protects Haryy while he is on Privit Drive. I'm thinking of a witch with several cat familiars. After all, Arabella can't watch No. 5 24/7. > There's probably always a "cat" hanging around the Dursley yard. In GofF Ch. 2, Harry thinks it odd that there is there wasn't a cat on Privit Drive. "There wasn't a creature in sight, not even a cat." I'm thinking a small army of cat's watching No. 5 > *She faked the broken leg that happened at the time of Dudley's birthday so that they would have to take Harry along to the zoo & he would finally get to have a bit of fun.(of course, a shot of skelegro or skelemend or something would heal it up right quick, but living among muggles,would wear a fake cast for a few weeks) > > *Mrs. Figg's house smelled of cabbage because of the potions she was always concocting (specifically, Polyjuice Potion, so that all the cats aren't animagi but witches & wizards who're using the potion to keep under cover AND Mrs.Figg isn't really an old lady, she's using the potion as part of her cover too) > > *The bigger tent that Mr Weasley borrowed for the QWC, the one that smelled of cats and cabbage (like Mrs. Figg's house) actually had belonged to her OR this reference was a clue-Mrs.Figg's house smells like a wizarding tent, hmmm Maybe she 'mugglified' her house along some wizard ideal, adopted by the same makers of wizard camping equipment that fit a 6 bed cabin in a pup tent. I'm looking forward to Arabella Figg as the new DADA teacher. I'm also hoping we see Fleur as an exchange student/teaching assistant. I'm thinking she could help out Hagrid and add a few triangles to confuse the shippers. She could help Hagrid and Madame Maxime get together and while Ron liked Fleur, Fleur seemed to be impressed by Bill, and Hermione seemed jealous when Fleur showed any attention to Harry. That's the extent of my shipping, but I think she'd make it interesting at Hogwart's Uncmark Uncmark From uncmark at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 06:47:35 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 06:47:35 -0000 Subject: Privit Drive Safety Zone and Dobby Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36716 I have a question about the supposed safety zone at No. 4 Privit Drive. According to Voldemort himself in GoF, he could not attack Harry at the Dursley's "Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic to ensure the boy's protection as long as he is in his relations care." GofF Ch. 33. So HOW did Dobby get in in ChoS? Agreed, he didn't physically harm Harry, but he was able to intercept mail, cast magic on a pudding, and do some elf-magic equivalent of Apparation. Shouldn't the magic protect Harry from this? Opinions? Uncmark From ecuamerican at hotmail.com Wed Mar 20 06:58:34 2002 From: ecuamerican at hotmail.com (ecuman24) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 06:58:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's role in Priori Incantatem In-Reply-To: <3C97C8F1.679C7D4A@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36717 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze wrote: > ladjables wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > Forgive me if this seems completely obvious/unlikely, > > but I believe Dumbledore had a hand in Priori > > Incantatem (PI). > > > > I've never considered Dumbledore omniscient, any more > > than I would consider him oblivious. But now Fawkes > > is on my mind, or rather his tail-feathers are. How > > significant is it that two feathers from Dumbledore's > > pet form the cores of Harry's and Voldemort's wands? > > I can't accept mere coincidence. > > > > > I've been thinking about this. It is rare that the PI would happen, so > I'd think that not many people would know about it, as you suggested. > How would D know about it? We know he's powerful, and knowledgeable - > enough to bring down Grindelwald. I'm beginning to wonder if there was a > link between Grindelwald and D, just like Harry and V? Perhaps G and D > had brother wands? > > I completely agree that it wasn't mere coincidence. > > -Katze Sorry for the jumbled quotes up top but I've been waiting for a discussion about the great wands for sometime now. First thing is that Sirius knew about PI also. I believe it was he who mentioned it first by name and Dumbledore agreed. Second, Grindelwald has also been popping up recently in some posts and it has to be very important. I mean, this guy was THE bad guy before Voldemort. But he is not tied in to my theories behind the Wands of the Phoenix...yet. Yes, its very odd that the pet of the best wizard of the time should give away *2* feathers: one being evil and one being good. I say one being evil and the other good because their natures would have to be like that. One choosing the up and coming Dark Lord and the other helping the hand to over throw it. But why 2? Even Dumbldore sounded quite astounded when he told Harry that Fawkes gave 2 feathers. It seemed like an oddity that that should happen. Dumbledore even calls the wands/feathers (I forget which one) brothers. And here is where my Early Greek Myth class comes in handy. We learned that in most Greek myth that involves 2 brothers, we see one rise above the other very unjustly and is undeserving of what he posseses. The other sits back for awhile and pounces later to take what is rightfully his (i.e. Jason's foster father, Oedipus' sons). But whatever I might be foreshadowing correctly or incorrectly, it still doesn't explain why Fawkes did what he did. Several things have popped in my mind about this flammable bird and his owner. They are more than what they appear to be. I think that either or both Fawkes and Dumbledore may be Animagus. Fawkes is just way too special to be just a bird (just like Scabbers was just way too ordinary to be a magical rat). He may have another magical aspect that we have not been introduced to yet. But for now I say Animagus purely because Dumbledore taught Transfiguration "back in the day" when we learn that he taught Tom Riddle in CoS. With Dumbledore teaching Transfiguration, there is no doubt that he has the knowledge and power to be an Animagus. And he may be an unliscensed Animagus, or else our dear Hermione would have informed us in PoA. Besides, 3 students did it without him knowing and Rita Skeeter is one also. Seems like an easy thing to go beneath the radar of the Ministry with this sort of magic. Anyways, that's where I have stopped in my theory of the wands. The wands are very crucial in my mind because they have alwasy fascinated me. Anyone with ideas, theories, or rebuttals I URGE to reply. I greatly appreciate it. Your friendly neighborhood Ecuamerican From ecuamerican at hotmail.com Wed Mar 20 07:10:30 2002 From: ecuamerican at hotmail.com (ecuman24) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 07:10:30 -0000 Subject: Privet Drive Safety Zone and Dobby In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36718 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" wrote: > I have a question about the supposed safety zone at No. 4 Privit > Drive. According to Voldemort himself in GoF, he could not attack > Harry at the Dursley's "Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic to ensure > the boy's protection as long as he is in his relations care." GofF > Ch. 33. Dumbledore may have put the "ancient spell" against only Voldemort and his Death Eaters and any enemy. That way Dobby, a lowly house elf and therefore not an enemy of Harry, could not have been affected. Dumbledore had access to Voldemort and DE paraphernalia via the loveable Snape to put the spell. From lterrellgiii at icqmail.com Wed Mar 20 04:13:25 2002 From: lterrellgiii at icqmail.com (L. Terrell Gould, III) Date: 19 Mar 2002 20:13:25 -0800 Subject: Wormtail's life debt to Harry Message-ID: <20020320041325.11063.cpmta@c012.snv.cp.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36719 An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From cindysphynx at comcast.net Wed Mar 20 09:55:12 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:55:12 -0000 Subject: Odd parallels and FEATHERBOAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36720 David wrote: >As I remember > it, Snape believed that Lupin was helping (the escaped criminal) > Black, and was following with the aim chiefly of catching Black and > secondarily of proving Lupin's guilt. It wasn't about getting >Lupin > fired at that point. Amanda agreed: >And regardless of his primary motivation > (to catch Sirius and prove Lupin's complicity), Snape was *also* >trying to > get (at the very least) Harry out of the situation. Hmmm. This is kind of interesting to ponder. The sequence of events is that Snape, knowing that Lupin has failed to take his potion and is going to transform, goes to Lupin's office with the potion. At this point, Snape's motives are clear -- he is trying to prevent Lupin from transforming. Then Snape sees Lupin (and only Lupin) on the Map. What makes sense for Snape to do at this point? I can only think of two things: (1) turn around and go back to his office, shaking his greasy head at the fact that Lupin's forgetfulness has caused Lupin to make a mad dash for the Shack; or (2) follow Lupin with the potion in hand and try to catch up with him in time. What doesn't make sense to me is why Snape leaves the castle at all if he's not going to bring the potion? Snape doesn't know there is a cloak available, he doesn't know the trio is out at night, he doesn't know about Black. Snape has to believe Lupin is going to the Shack to transform because there's no foundation at all for Snape to believe anything else. Indeed, if Snape believes Black is in the Shack, then one would think he'd let Black and Lupin have a little reunion there in the Shack so Black can be torn to ribbons by a werewolf. I think Snape would gladly trade Order of Merlin for that scenario. I've managed to thoroughly confuse myself, I think. I don't see why Snape would risk tangling with a werewolf to apprehend a criminal Snape has no reason to believe is even in the Shack. I think I've talked myself into believing that there's no basis to think that Snape leaves the castle to apprehend Black or save the Trio or prevent Lupin from transforming. This whole scene is starting to feel kind of FLINT-y to me now. Tough Dicentra wrote: >I had always assumed that he put the cloak on for > eavesdropping purposes, but at the mouth of the Whomping Willow, he > didn't know there was anything to eavesdrop on (although he may have > thought Lupin was going to meet Sirius). He must have been afraid of > running into a werewolf again and therefore went into the situation > invisible. Saved by James again, Severus. What do you think about > that, ya oily git? As much as I bow down to you because of your enthusiastic insults toward Snape, I'm not sure I'm on board here. When Snape gets to the Willow, he sees the cloak. Cloaks are rare, so we could assume that Snape actually recognizes this particular cloak (lying there in the dark) as belonging to James. It's a rather wobbly theory, but we have to go there because we have no choice, as Snape somehow knows to thank Harry for the cloak later. When Snape arrives at the willow, Snape now knows Harry is around and Lupin is around. He still doesn't know about Black. So maybe the relevant parallel is that Snape is fulfilling the James role and is preparing to pull Harry out of the tunnel so Harry doesn't meet a fully-grown werewolf. Oooh, would that erase Snape's life debt to James? Yes, I like this bit because then Snape's motive isn't *really* to save Harry's life. Snape's motives instead are self-serving -- he wants to get the Life-Debt-To-James monkey off of his back. Snape as self-serving is good, very good. Anyway, Snape takes the cloak because -- er, who wouldn't? It never hurts to have an invisibility cloak, I guess. Besides, Snape probably has never actually touched an invisibility cloak, and he is fondling it and getting a real thrill playing with this new toy, even for a minute. ;-) Dicentra again: >We don't really know why Sirius hates Snape so > much, nor do we know what provoked him into sending Snape down the > tunnel in the first place. Trapezoid! Florence! Trapezoid! Florence! Dicentra again: > And I'm not necessarily talking about CUPID'S BLUDGER or any of those > other Cock-Eyed Yet Entertaining theories. Cock-Eyed? You mean Cock-Eyed in the sense of being completely canon- based and spot-on? Dicentra (on the Dumbledore/McGonagall/Snape trio): >Could that mean that Ron will indeed go bad then come back as > a spy, unbeknownst to us, the anguishing readers? > Nah. It means that Snape and Ron will both die. And FWIW, I think Ron will pre-decease Snape. Sorry. ************ Eileen wrote: > But, bloody ambush appreciation can co-exist with SYCOPHANTism. It's > the Avery thing again. Avery who is both sickened and attracted by > violence. Sure, FEATHERBOAS can co-exist with SYCOPHANTism. Just barely, perhaps. But I must admit I have no idea how one can wear a FEATHERBOA and have this pity for evil underlings thing going on. I mean, in our many ambush scenarios, people are getting *killed*. Wilkes dies (although not in an ambush because Elkins said I couldn't kill him in an ambush). Rosier dies. They probaby had a lot to live for, too, and they valued their own evil little lives as much as Pettigrew values his. Yet Rosier died at the hands of Moody, and Eileen and Elkins are bouncing on the sofa. What's the difference between Pettigrew and Rosier? And if you're mourning Rosier, why did you rejoice in his ambush in the first place? Hmmmmm? Cindy (who doesn't know why she is challenging Elkins and Eileen about their FEATHERBOA credentials because if they both surrender their credentials, she will be a rather lonely FEATHERBOA) From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Mar 20 12:27:52 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:27:52 -0000 Subject: Odd parallels and FEATHERBOAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36721 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > What doesn't make sense to me is why Snape leaves the castle at all > if he's not going to bring the potion? Snape doesn't know there is a > cloak available, he doesn't know the trio is out at night, he doesn't > know about Black. Snape has to believe Lupin is going to the Shack > to transform because there's no foundation at all for Snape to > believe anything else. Yeah, that does seem a bit, uhm... plot-driven, doesn't it? My fanwank for it is that the potion is volatile, so that shlepping it from Hogwarts to Hogsmeade would destroy its magical properties; and that Snape was hoping to catch up to Lupin before the transformation and bring him back to the castle to take the potion. It was risky, of course -- he might've ended up encountering a transformed Lupin -- but hey, Snape is a fully trained wizard now, with advance warning of what he might be facing, not a terrified sixteen-year-old who was caught by surprise. If Lupin transformed and attacked him, why then Snape would be forced to injure or kill him, and wouldn't that be a shame, boo-hoo. This also fits in with hints given earlier in the book that Snape is still afraid of Lupin. Maybe that fear's been eating away at him, and Snape was actually looking for an excuse to face the werewolf and prove to himself that he no longer needs arrogant Quidditch jocks to rescue him in such situations. > When Snape gets to the Willow, he sees the cloak. Cloaks are rare, > so we could assume that Snape actually recognizes this particular > cloak (lying there in the dark) as belonging to James. It's a rather > wobbly theory, but we have to go there because we have no choice Well, the dark wouldn't be a problem as Snape is perfectly capable of casting Lumos. I have no problem believing that he picked up the cloak, examined it, and recognized it. But even if he didn't recognize it, the mere presence of the cloak indicated that there was somebody else in the shack with Lupin, someone who didn't want to be seen. When Snape got to the shack and realized that Harry was there, he would've figured out that the cloak was most likely James'. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed Mar 20 13:07:48 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:07:48 -0000 Subject: Lupin correction - slightly ranty (was Odd parallels) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36722 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > At this point, Snape's motives are clear -- he is > trying to prevent Lupin from transforming. This is a common misconception. The potion does *not* prevent Lupin from transforming, it makes his wolf form harmless when he does. He says he curls up in his office. Theories have been spun in the past on this list based on this misunderstanding. Fortunately, I have forgotten them all so can't remember why it makes a difference. Irritated!David Another prediction: on March 21, 2002, a new member will join HPFGU. Their first post will ask "You know that potion that Lupin takes to stop him transforming? Well, why doesn't he just..." etc. From uncmark at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 13:11:24 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:11:24 -0000 Subject: Privet Drive Safety Zone and Dobby In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36723 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ecuman24" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" wrote: > > I have a question about the supposed safety zone at No. 4 Privit > > Drive. According to Voldemort himself in GoF, he could not attack > > Harry at the Dursley's "Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic to > ensure > > the boy's protection as long as he is in his relations care." GofF > > Ch. 33. > > > Dumbledore may have put the "ancient spell" against only Voldemort > and his Death Eaters and any enemy. That way Dobby, a lowly house > elf and therefore not an enemy of Harry, could not have been > affected. Dumbledore had access to Voldemort and DE paraphernalia via > the loveable Snape to put the spell. But wasn't Dobby an agent of Lucius Malfoy, who was a known Death Eater? Uncmark From Edblanning at aol.com Wed Mar 20 13:58:01 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 08:58:01 EST Subject: Thanking Snape?/Apologies/SUCCESS/ Harry AK'ing Voldy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36724 This is a bit behind the times. I've amalgamated a couple of things I posted it on Monday, but which apparently got eaten by the system whilst the group was off line. Marina: > See, I have a different view of apologies, possibly influenced by the > fact that I don't have children. I don't like them. (Apologies, I > mean. Well, okay, and children, too.) I tend to just get more > annoyed when someone apologizes to me, because I'm convinced that > they're sincerely sorry for what they've done (as opposed to being > sincerely sorry for getting caught), and because in my experience > people have a tendency to translate "apology accepted" as "so now you > can do it again." If someone has wronged me, I'd prefer they keep my > mouth shut about it and refrain from wronging me ever again. This is > probably very cynical and anti-social of me, but what other character > Eloise: You've got me thinking there. Not a reaction I had anticipated, I admit. I think my answer would be that those aren't real apologies. To go back to the children ( I'm not sure that I like them all that much either, she says, damaging the unwarranted reputation she seems to have got in some quarters), we went from a situation with my oldest where we went straight from never apologising at all, to 'I *said* sorry!' (you'll have to imagine the English indignant whine) with obviously not a trace of regret. True apology is hard. It's difficult to do, because it does mean having remorse for what you've done. It's also very difficult to accept an apology graciously ( I live with certain individuals who certainly haven't got the knack - myself for one.) especially if one is not to diminish the wrong that has been done. So I can see why you don't like apologies: it's all too easy for a trite apology and a polite, 'that's OK, it doesn't matter' ( when really it *does*) and nothing has changed. Like the cliche of going to confession, so one can start sinning all over again with a clean slate. That's not how it works. Snape, I'm sure would be *lousy* at accepting apologies, so that the apologiser would just wish they hadn't bothered. Dicentra >Whether Harry Did the Right Thing with the expelliarmus is questioned >in canon, even by Harry. No sooner has Snape done a face plant than >Sirius tells Harry "you should have left him to me" and Harry can't >look at Sirius because he's suddenly not sure it *was* the right thing >to do. Yes. It was an accident, of course. He didn't realise the others were going to join in. But this goes into my category of things that although accidental, you apologise for out of politeness. There should actually be *less* loss of face involved. There *should be* regret for an injury that one didn't mean to cause (although in this case I can see they might not really regret it!). cindysphynx wrote: > That said, I have to kick myself, because I overlooked perhaps the > biggest, most important apology in the books. In my favorite scene > in my favorite book, no less: > > "Forgive me, Remus," said Black. > "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?" > > Now, what on earth are Black and Lupin apologizing for here? Back > when Voldemort fell, no one knew whom to trust. Neither did anything > wrong by failing to trust the other. It was nothing personal, and it > was unavoidable. Yet there they are, going out of their way to > apologize before, uh, murdering someone in cold blood. A lot of > people have expressed dissatisfaction with this scene, and perhaps > one reason is that neither character has any good reason to be > apologizing. I don't know. Margaret replied: >The answer, I think, is that they are not precisely apologizing >but rather asking mutual forgiveness. They are getting out what >previously lay between them so that their friendship can be >re-established on its old basis of mutual trust. And if they're >about to commit cold-blooded murder, they're going to NEED that >friendship, boy howdy! (They still do, as it turns out, even >after the murder is averted.) >On that basis I'd say your instinct that this is the "most >important apology in the books" is perfectly sound! Wholehearted agreement. The point about sincere apology is that it isn't just some magic social formula, it's the recognition that something has gone wrong between two (or more) people that needs to be put right if the relationship is to carry on or be healed. It's an acknowledgement of how the situation is and that something needs to be done about it (such as in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa). Remus and Sirius had both harboured dark thoughts about each other for the last thirteen years, and Lupin hadn't exactly just dropped in for a cup of tea with his old buddy, had he? They both recognised that they needed to clear the air, to admit that they had been wrong, even if in retrospect there had been justification for their beliefs. Marina again >I suspect that it will be chilly day in hell before Snape apologizes >to anyone, and I doubt he would react favorably to an apology from >Harry, or from Sirius, or from anyone else he thinks has wronged him I'm afraid you're right, there. But isn't this exactly what was being discussed a while back under the 'characters frozen in time' (IIRC) heading? They have to move on, but how are they going to do it? Dumbledore recognises this, although so far he has only got them to shake hands. Well, OK, 'Real Wizards don't Apologise'. Real Wizards suffer from a great deal too much pride, if you ask me. And they're not helped by being male. (Isn't it interesting that Cindy's other example of an apology - to Muggles, no less - was from that wizard who, according to Fudge, is conspicuously lacking in 'Proper wizarding pride'.) But there are ways and ways of showing regret, of moving on. Isn't that what Harry and Ron did in that 'apology that wasn't an apology' scene that restored their friendship? It's like Harry never wanting to cry. It's not what men do. No tree hugging for wizards. Harry and Ron both knew what the other wanted to say. They both knew the other was sorry for their part in the rift between them and in the end, *because they both recognised the situation*, it didn't have to be said. Now I do believe that Sirius and Snape are no more likely to say sorry to each other than I am to fly on my broomstick and that they're further handicapped by never having liked each other. But perhaps, just perhaps, now they're both openly on the same side, they might gain some grudging respect for each other (as some have speculated about that look Snape gives Harry at the end of GoF) which could open the way for some mutual recognition that they've been wrong about each other. Not *saying* sorry, but doing something which shows that they want to move on. And perhaps Lupin and Snape might achieve the same thing too. Friendship with edge, as I put it before. If I were Dumbledore, I would be tempted to send them on a mission where their lives depended on trusting each other. Snape and Lupin at least (IMHO) are sensible enough not to let pride get in the way of accomplishing a mission for Dumbledore. As for Harry...well he really *ought* to acknowledge that he owes Snape something for keeping him on his broomstick, but I suppose Snape's made it pretty difficult for him to do it, so I won't be too hard on him. Now Porphyria takes me gently to task on a couple of issues: >> The problem I addressed with my SUCCESS theory. >Yes, but your SUCCESS theory postulates that it was Quirrell who >disabled Snape, and this after he already knows he's up to no good. The >thought of Q. getting the best of Snape when Snape has every reason to >suspect him just breaks my heart. So perhaps it was...Dumbledore who >slipped a slow-acting tranquilizer into Snape's pumpkin juice before he >left for London. At least we can forgive Snape for trusting Dumbledore >to serve him a drink. :-) I think we can even use your same acronym. This was why I came down on the pumpkin juice as a method rather than any other. Unless Snape took to drinking only from a hip flask like Moody, it could have been possible. Just because the situation has a certain amount of pathos, it doesn't invalidate the idea. But it was only a speculation. I agree that Dumbledore has edge. Rather a lot of edge, actually, and I know that Harry himself speculates that he felt Dumbledore thought he had a right to face Voldy. But somehow I can't get my mind around it all being a set up. I don't really see the point. Dumbledore himself said he only got there just in time. If Harry could get the stone from the mirror, then surely letting him get into that situation was a huge risk: Voldemort so very nearly got the stone from him. I cannot see Snape, however loyal to Dumbledore, agreeing to back off, unless there is a hidden agenda which he knows about and we don't. There are some on this list, of course, who think he has some kind of official guardian role in regards to Harry. I don't, but if he did, would Dumbledore disable him? Hmm...I don't know. Dumbledore's edge, again. Then again, my own theory, which hasn't been out for a while (in fact which I'd forgotten about until now), was that in fact, Snape was himself (rather childishly) desperate to be the protector of the Stone. So again, if I am correct, he should have been in evidence. (This theory explains, to me at least, why he doesn't appear to have related his fears about Quirrell to Dumbledore, and lends another layer of depth to his hatred of Harry: Snape fails to save the Lily and James, but Harry survives despite (not because of ) his efforts; Snape works in danger and secrecy against Voldemort, but Harry, through no effort of his own famously defeats him; Snape fails to protect the Philosopher's stone, but Harry does; Snape fails to bring Sirius to 'justice', *because of Harry*. I think he starts off jealous of Harry, immaturely seeing him, though a child, as a rival, so that every next thing Harry achieves just makes things worse.) Porphyria again: (after I agreed with Cindy that Snape's motives for going to the shack were not honourable.) >And Eloise replied: >> Unfortunately true! >Eloise! How could you give up so easily! And when you were doing such a >good job of defending him! (Hangs head in shame) I suppose I did rather drop the baton there, didn't I? But you picked it up and raced to the winning post with it, so all is well. Put it down to lack of sleep and the realisation that I really *had* better do something about the housework, so that I sort of ran out of steam. But at the same time, no matter how pro-Snape my stance is, there comes a point when I feel I can't defend him any further. Although I've made a veritable cottage industry out of trying to *understand* him, which means that I do excuse a lot, some of his behaviour just can't really be excused. But that's part of the fascination. How can anyone be so bad and so good at the same time? I take on board what you said about mixed motivation, and I think you're right, but at the same time, I'm rather afraid that at that point his primary motivation, his *conscious* motivation, was simply to get his own back on Lupin, and Sirius too, if possible. Sorry if I'm letting the side down. It's like the children again: however much I love them them, however much I try to understand them, sometimes (too often at the moment, in some quarters), they just cross a bridge too far. Being on someone's side doesn't mean you have to be blind to their faults. Cindy: >Finally, what happens if Harry uses AK on Voldemort? Uh, no idea. >And the fact that I have no idea means that this scenario might well >be the climactic scene in the final showdown. I think perhaps if >Voldemort or Harry use AK on the other, they will *both* be killed >due to that blood tie they have now. >And if that's the case, I have to wonder why Dumbledore would be >Gleaming about that possibility. But it was a very transient gleam, wasn't it? So transient that Harry thought he must have been mistaken. So it makes sense. Dumbledore thinks, 'Yes, got him!' for a fraction of a second, before remembering the implication and looking wearier than ever. I hope you're wrong. Oh, and thank you to everyone for my continuing cross-cultural education. First Smores, now pink flamingos. Looking out at the grey sky and pouring rain, you'll understand why the latter aren't a common feature of British front gardens, we just don't have the climate. I've been trying to think of a British equivalent and can't really come up with a direct one (which, believe me, has nothing to do with Brits having intrinsic good taste). The best equivalent analogy I can come up with would be putting replacement UPVC windows in the gothic cathedral; 'stone' cladding, that other scourge of otherwise perfectly pleasant little Victorian terraced houses would seem to be a little superfluous. But the pink flamingos are a brilliant image, now that I understand them. Eloise who notices her dicentras are coming into flower, though not the white one yet, which seems to have had a set back this winter, and who had intended to suggest a longship as a suitably Tough Fourth Man vessel (giving Cindy the opportunity to dress up a la Brunnhilde and stride up and down the middle, making sure no-one was slacking), but who is very happy with the idea of a hovercraft, particularly if Elkins will make sure the bar is well stocked with single malt, preferably a selection of nice peaty, smoky Islay ones. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From john at walton.vu Wed Mar 20 14:06:00 2002 From: john at walton.vu (johnwaltonvu) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:06:00 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: HPFGU Status Report Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36725 Hello all, HPFGU underwent a serious hacking incident last weekend where the groups were temporarily deleted by an intruder. Fortunately, we were able to restore them. No archive data has been lost, though if you sent email to the list between 9pm EST on Sunday and 10pm EST on Monday, it may have been lost. Please feel free to resend any messages sent between those times. The Moderators are investigating the incident and will report back with any further information. We note that Yahoo in general and YahooGroups in particular is acting a little sluggishly at the moment -- we apologise for the inconvenience. Of course, we're very grateful to them for restoring our groups! Regards, The HPFGU Moderator Team From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 14:07:29 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:07:29 -0000 Subject: Voldie's foes In-Reply-To: <001901c1cfaa$c0971000$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36726 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" wrote: > finwitch said: Well... Just trying to see if from Voldemort's POW. Dumbledore was the only wizard *he* feared. (While others did serious damage to his DEs and helped a lot - well - who was able to do anything to immortal Voldemort? Others in the opposite side - well, they opposed him and were very brave, but they were not *personal* foes like Harry(defeater) and Dumbledore(who he feared). Also, most of them were difficult to catch - and the *old* Voldemort never met Ron or Hermione. Anyway, the fact that Harry is the one who defeated him makes him *the* foe. How many wizards or witches have actually stood one to one with him? Ron sacrificed himself, Hermione had to return - Harry stood to Voldemort until Dumbledore came. Then, Ginny and Hermione are victims, Ron is close and helps a bit, but Harry's the one actually fighting Tom Riddle... Few are able to resist imperious - Harry did, and I think Dumbledore would, also - Moody obviously didn't. None of the other students did, Mr. Crouch Sr. almost did, but not quite. Harry's able to shake it off at once. From cindysphynx at comcast.net Wed Mar 20 14:15:49 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:15:49 -0000 Subject: Lupin correction - slightly ranty (was Odd parallels) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36727 Cindy wrote: > > At this point, Snape's motives are clear -- he is > > trying to prevent Lupin from transforming. David wrote: > This is a common misconception. The potion does *not* prevent Lupin > from transforming . . . Perhaps my statement was incomplete, but I can't agree that my statement was based on a common misconception. I said Snape was trying to prevent Lupin from transforming. I should have said Snape was trying to prevent Lupin from transforming into a hideous, snarling, dangerous, wizard-killing, fully-formed werewolf. As there is *no way* to prevent Lupin from transforming out of his human form, I didn't think it necessary to spell this out; I believed it to be understood. Hope that helps. Cindy From sophiamcl at hotmail.com Wed Mar 20 11:36:30 2002 From: sophiamcl at hotmail.com (sophia mclaughlin) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:36:30 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Privit Drive Safety Zone and Dobby Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36728 >From: "uncmark" >Reply-To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >Subject: [HPforGrownups] Privit Drive Safety Zone and Dobby >Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 06:47:35 -0000 > >I have a question about the supposed safety zone at No. 4 Privit >Drive. According to Voldemort himself in GoF, he could not attack >Harry at the Dursley's "Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic to ensure >the boy's protection as long as he is in his relations care." GofF >Ch. 33. > >So HOW did Dobby get in in ChoS? Agreed, he didn't physically harm >Harry, but he was able to intercept mail, cast magic on a pudding, >and do some elf-magic equivalent of Apparation. Shouldn't the magic >protect Harry from this? > >Opinions? >Uncmark > I would suggest the safe zone was/is a safe zone from Voldemort specifically, not magic in general. "Sophia" From chynarose8 at hotmail.com Wed Mar 20 12:28:07 2002 From: chynarose8 at hotmail.com (abigail_draconi) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:28:07 -0000 Subject: Justafiable Means and Good using the Tools of Evil to Fight Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36729 Here is a semi-random question that entered my brain one fine Wen moring. Is there a true, clear line between Good and Evil? Does a means considered 'Evil' (use of 'dark' magic and artifacts) automatically become good just because the 'Good' side uses it? And who's to say that they are on the side of 'Good' in the first place? After all, I'm sure that V's convinced 100% Right. @--->-- Chyna Rose From betsyfallon at hotmail.com Wed Mar 20 13:15:04 2002 From: betsyfallon at hotmail.com (betsyfallon) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:15:04 -0000 Subject: Dobby Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36730 Hi everyone. I have been having computer problems and haven't been able to read all the back posts so I don't know if this question has been asked before. I am utterly wild about the characters of Dobby and Winky. I have read GoF and CoS each about three times and nowhere can I find out how tall they are. In GoF, Winky comes into Moody's office behind Snape and she is standing behind him and I think she is up to his knees (?) Which makes me think that Dobby and Winky are about three feet tall, but does anyone else know. Thanks Betsy From betsyfallon at hotmail.com Wed Mar 20 13:22:33 2002 From: betsyfallon at hotmail.com (betsyfallon) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:22:33 -0000 Subject: Fred and George's wager on the Quidditch World Cup In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36731 I'm glad you brought up the character of Figg. Arabella Figg was the Dursley's next door neighbor who used to watch Harry when the family went out, but she didn't treat Harry in a friendly way. If she is a good witch, then why didn't she show Harry an ounce of compassion? Makes me wonder what her instructions were. Betsy From Edblanning at aol.com Wed Mar 20 14:52:33 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:52:33 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's role in Priori Incantatem Message-ID: <31.241b1aa5.29c9fc31@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36732 In a message dated 20/03/02 07:40:32 GMT Standard Time, ecuamerican at hotmail.com writes: > Sorry for the jumbled quotes up top but I've been waiting for a > discussion about the great wands for sometime now. First thing is > that Sirius knew about PI also. I believe it was he who mentioned it > first by name and Dumbledore agreed. The other way around, actually (GoF, 605). Dumbledore mentions it by name, Sirius translates ( with a question mark). > Yes, its very odd that the pet of the best wizard of the time should > give away *2* feathers: one being evil and one being good. I say one > being evil and the other good because their natures would have to be > like that. One choosing the up and coming Dark Lord and the other > helping the hand to over throw it. But why 2? Even Dumbldore > sounded quite astounded when he told Harry that Fawkes gave 2 > feathers. It seemed like an oddity that that should happen. > Dumbledore even calls the wands/feathers (I forget which one) > brothers. I don't think we have evidence that the feathers themselves are bad/good. 'It is the wand that chooses the wizard'. Now the similarity which Ollivander points out is that Harry, he believes, is destined *to do* great things whilst Voldy has *done* great things - terrible, but great, I think he says. The wand is a *tool*. I don't believe that wands are good or bad, or have any moral sense. But they seem to have some kind of resonance with a wizard who will make them work to their greatest potential. It is up to the wizard whether the wand performs good or evil acts. I think it is quite possible that Voldy and Harry could use each other's wands pretty effectively ( although the wood difference might affect things). We don't know what would have happened if Harry had had the choice of *both* wands, do we? > > Several things have popped in my mind about this flammable bird and > his owner. They are more than what they appear to be. I think that > either or both Fawkes and Dumbledore may be Animagus. Fawkes is just > way too special to be just a bird (just like Scabbers was just way > too ordinary to be a magical rat). He may have another magical > aspect that we have not been introduced to yet. He's not just a bird he's a *phoenix*. How special can you get? In fact, according to myth, well, western myth at least ( I know they occur in Chinese/Japanese myth too) there is only one. Not just special, * unique*. This is not to deny that we may learn more of his special powers. > Animagus purely because Dumbledore taught Transfiguration > "back in the day" when we learn that he taught Tom Riddle in CoS. With > Dumbledore teaching Transfiguration, there is no doubt that he has > the knowledge and power to be an Animagus. And he may be an > unliscensed Animagus, or else our dear Hermione would have informed > us in PoA. It has been speculated before that he is an animagus. I should say it was highly likely. But there is no need for him to be unregistered: Hermione only checked the animagi registered that century, Dumbledore is about 150, isn't he, so he could have been registered in the previous century. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Wed Mar 20 15:07:07 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:07:07 -0000 Subject: Fred and George's wager on the Quidditch World Cup In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36733 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "betsyfallon" wrote: > I'm glad you brought up the character of Figg. Arabella Figg was the > Dursley's next door neighbor who used to watch Harry when the family > went out, but she didn't treat Harry in a friendly way. If she is a > good witch, then why didn't she show Harry an ounce of compassion? > Makes me wonder what her instructions were. > > Betsy Mrs. Figg showed Harry several ounces of compassion, IRRC. He just didn't enjoy the petrified cake and the obsession for cats. Eileen From bonnie at niche-associates.com Wed Mar 20 15:08:56 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:08:56 -0000 Subject: Odd parallels and FEATHERBOAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36734 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > David wrote: > > >As I remember > > it, Snape believed that Lupin was helping (the escaped criminal) > > Black, and was following with the aim chiefly of catching Black and > > secondarily of proving Lupin's guilt. It wasn't about getting > >Lupin > > fired at that point. > > Amanda agreed: > > >And regardless of his primary motivation > > (to catch Sirius and prove Lupin's complicity), Snape was *also* > >trying to > > get (at the very least) Harry out of the situation. > Cindy ponders: > Hmmm. This is kind of interesting to ponder. > > The sequence of events is that Snape, knowing that Lupin has failed > to take his potion and is going to transform, goes to Lupin's office > with the potion. At this point, Snape's motives are clear -- he is > trying to prevent Lupin from transforming ["into a into a hideous, snarling, dangerous, wizard-killing, fully-formed werewolf"]. > > What doesn't make sense to me is why Snape leaves the castle at all > if he's not going to bring the potion? Snape doesn't know there is a > cloak available, he doesn't know the trio is out at night, he doesn't > know about Black. Snape has to believe Lupin is going to the Shack > to transform because there's no foundation at all for Snape to > believe anything else. Dicentra interjects: Unless he put two and two together as only Snape can. Cindy continues: Indeed, if Snape believes Black is in the > Shack, then one would think he'd let Black and Lupin have a little > reunion there in the Shack so Black can be torn to ribbons by a > werewolf. I think Snape would gladly trade Order of Merlin for that > scenario. > > I've managed to thoroughly confuse myself, I think. I don't see why > Snape would risk tangling with a werewolf to apprehend a criminal > Snape has no reason to believe is even in the Shack. I think I've > talked myself into believing that there's no basis to think that > Snape leaves the castle to apprehend Black or save the Trio or > prevent Lupin from transforming. This whole scene is starting to > feel kind of FLINT-y to me now. > > Tough Dicentra wrote: > > >I had always assumed that he put the cloak on for > > eavesdropping purposes, but at the mouth of the Whomping Willow, he > > didn't know there was anything to eavesdrop on (although he may have > > thought Lupin was going to meet Sirius). He must have been afraid > of > > running into a werewolf again and therefore went into the situation > > invisible. Saved by James again, Severus. What do you think about > > that, ya oily git? > > As much as I bow down to you because of your enthusiastic insults > toward Snape, I'm not sure I'm on board here. Dicentra waves a white flag: All right already! I give! Uncle! Uncle! Snape wouldn't put on the cloak to protect himself from a werewolf because the werewolf would be able to smell him and also he's a fully formed wizard capable of tangling with such a beast and upon finding the cloak he would deduce that Harry was involved (he always knows Harry's involved) and so maybe he went to the shack not to save Harry but to get him expelled. AND get Lupin fired. AND apprehend Sirius. *sigh* It's just that the idea of the cloak-as-James's-proxy saving Snape was too good to pass up, even if it is so easily refuted. Who knows? The scene is a bit FLINT-y, but I think JKR is relying on the already established convention that Snape Turns Up At The Worst Possible Time. From Harry's perspective, that is. Snape's only motive may be... well... that he's Snape, and that's what Snape does. > Cindy attempts to save Dicentra's bacon: > So maybe the relevant parallel is that Snape is fulfilling the James > role and is preparing to pull Harry out of the tunnel so Harry > doesn't meet a fully-grown werewolf. Oooh, would that erase Snape's > life debt to James? Yes, I like this bit because then Snape's motive > isn't *really* to save Harry's life. Snape's motives instead are > self-serving -- he wants to get the Life-Debt-To-James monkey off of > his back. Snape as self-serving is good, very good. > Dicentra breathes a sigh of relief: THERE we go! Parallel. Now the universe makes sense again. > Dicentra again, in the distant past: > > >We don't really know why Sirius hates Snape so > > much, nor do we know what provoked him into sending Snape down the > > tunnel in the first place. Cindy jumps up and down, waving her arms: > > Trapezoid! Florence! Trapezoid! Florence! > Dicentra again, in the past: > > > And I'm not necessarily talking about CUPID'S BLUDGER or any of > those > > other Cock-Eyed Yet Entertaining theories. > Cindy innocently asks: Cock-Eyed? You mean Cock-Eyed in the sense of being completely canon- > based and spot-on? Dicentra innocently responds: Yes, that's exactly what I meant. > > Dicentra in the past (on the Dumbledore/McGonagall/Snape trio): > > >Could that mean that Ron will indeed go bad then come back as > > a spy, unbeknownst to us, the anguishing readers? > > > > Nah. It means that Snape and Ron will both die. And FWIW, I think > Ron will pre-decease Snape. Sorry. > > ************ > > Eileen wrote: > > > But, bloody ambush appreciation can co-exist with SYCOPHANTism. > It's > > the Avery thing again. Avery who is both sickened and attracted by > > violence. > > > Sure, FEATHERBOAS can co-exist with SYCOPHANTism. Just barely, > perhaps. But I must admit I have no idea how one can wear a > FEATHERBOA and have this pity for evil underlings thing going on. > > I mean, in our many ambush scenarios, people are getting *killed*. > Wilkes dies (although not in an ambush because Elkins said I couldn't > kill him in an ambush). Rosier dies. They probaby had a lot to live > for, too, and they valued their own evil little lives as much as > Pettigrew values his. Yet Rosier died at the hands of Moody, and > Eileen and Elkins are bouncing on the sofa. What's the difference > between Pettigrew and Rosier? And if you're mourning Rosier, why did > you rejoice in his ambush in the first place? Hmmmmm? > > Cindy (who doesn't know why she is challenging Elkins and Eileen > about their FEATHERBOA credentials because if they both surrender > their credentials, she will be a rather lonely FEATHERBOA) Dicentra reminds Cindy of something: I seem to recall being offered a key-lime-green FEATHERBOA. Did I refuse it? No! I might be curled up in the fetal position on the deck of the Fourth Man hovercraft, but I'm really not such bad company if you don't mind conversing while lying on your stomach. --Dicentra, whose RL hovercraft trip from Calais to Dover nearly made her hurl From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 15:09:19 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:09:19 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36735 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > In message no 36547, I introduced a pile of predictions and tried to > pass them off as being vaguely supported by symbolic > interpretations. This is the first of my wacky interpretations. > > Most of the canon interpretation that I have done here has been > analytical, trying to get the main outlines from a riot of colourful > detail. This feels to me to be the opposite, deliberately turning up > the gain on the colour knob and ignoring the logic, playing up the > trees and ignoring the wood. > > Hagrid is introduced in PS as the Keeper of the Keys at Hogwarts, and > that is the title of the relevant chapter. In practical terms, we > never see him exercise this role in the first four books. In > *symbolic* terms, however, he does this a great deal both for Harry > and the reader. If we think of him as introducing Harry to new > themes and places, he is constantly popping up. Monsterbook of Monsters - introduction not only to Monsters, but to books that need a *trick* of sorts to open. He shows the trick to the kids - but why, oh why, the shop-keeper doesn't know? > He introduces Harry to the Dursleys, and then to the magical world. > He introduces all new students to Hogwarts - this is emphasised as > there is no practical reason for them not using the carriages like > the older students. None - except to get the older students there FIRST so they can applaude to the first-years in the sorting - and to give first-years a good look at the castle, plus information only first-years need, don't want them blundering into dangerous places before they're sorted... A good way to welcome them. > He is the first to tell Harry of Voldemort. He is instrumental in > Harry's first Hogwarts meeting with Voldemort, in the Forbidden > Forest. Indeed he introduces Harry to the FF itself, a metaphor for > the unconscious if ever I saw one: dark, secret, forbidden, full of > mysteries and monsters. (I will try to address the implications of > meeting V first there another time.) > > It is from him we first learn of Hogsmeade. When Harry gets lost in > Knockturn Alley, it is Hagrid who provides the way back. > > He starts the process of Harry getting to know his parents, by > getting the photo album at the end of PS. > > In PS he raises the issue of wizarding blood, central to COS. > > He goes to Azkaban late in COS, introducing a key theme for POA. > > In POA he goes to London to get Buckbeak off, and is treated > unjustly, foreshadowing the Pensieve scenes (which I see as central > to GOF). > > His function can be used for bad as well as good: he is the key for > Quirrell to get to the stone. > > There are some interesting consequences of this. Fifty years > earlier, Riddle framed him, and Dumbledore intervened to keep him at > Hogwarts. In other words, right from before the start of the series, > there was an attempt to damage this role. Yes - the worst was in GoF by Rita Skeeter because Hagrid refused to give her a key to harm Harry! > Three times he has introduced Harry to dragons: at Gringotts, with > Norbert, and then the Horntail. I would therefore expect dragons to > play a crucial role in a future book. (People have already pointed > out that dragons guard Gringotts, one Weasley works there and another > works with dragons suggesting a future plot tie-in.) It is... And Hagrid gave Harry the Gringotts golden key. > At the end of GOF he is sent on a mission by Dumbledore, with > Maxime. That signals to me that Harry will go on a mission, most > probably in the next book, and likely accompanied by a companion, > outside Hogwarts. I will pick this up in a future post about Harry > and the feminine. Hmm... The feminine being... Not Cho who's grieving over Cedric. Not Hermione who'll be pairing with Ron. My best guess is Fleur. She *was* in the Tournament. And she, also, has a special way against Voldemort that has to do with the core of her wand: Veela-charm. Voldemort is only a man, after all... > What of his bumbling and drinking? I believe this is related to > Voldemort's early attack on him. The Keeper of the Keys is damaged, > and functions defectively, still mostly but not always for good. Scary-looking and dangerous habits but kind heart. > Most portentously of all, one of his guises in PS is as a ferryman in > charge of a three-headed dog, suggesting to me that he is > foreshadowing the full arc of Harry's life and death. To emphasise > this properly, he ought by rights to die himself, either just before > Harry, or as foreshadowing at the end of Book 6. Hagrid is also the *first* person Harry trusts since his parents died. All in all... For the all the nice things Harry ever had, the first taste always came from Hagrid. Hogwarts letter, birth-day cake, kindness, friend, birthday-gift, positive info of his parents, answers, notion that sometimes one *can* break rules and nevermind when it's standing up for someone else, Gringotts key to a vault with lots of money in it, shops, wizard-world, "ticket" to Platform 9 3/4... even flying! (on motorcycle). Even Hagrid's lack in giving info on how to get into the platform proves *Good* - Harry meets Weasleys! Knowing them wizards by having an *owl* - not a co-incidence that Hagrid gave Harry an owl... From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Mar 20 15:16:37 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:16:37 -0000 Subject: FILK: Brush Up Your Curses Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36736 Brush Up Your Curses To the tune of "Brush Up Your Shakespeare" by Cole Porter, from "Kiss Me Kate" SCENE: a remote hillside, during the early days of Voldemort's first rise to power. Concerned that his Death Eaters are not wreaking enough havoc, the Dark Lord summons them and delivers a lecture on proper terror techniques. VOLDEMORT: -intro- The good guys in our society Are starting to lack timidity. To impress them, it's not enough (you'll find) To cast a Stun or Full Body-Bind. You'll find that things go from bad to worse If you merely manage a Leg-Locker curse. They'll continue to harry and hound and harm us If you hit them with Expelliarmus. So the spells which you must learn, Which allow for no repentance, Are the spells with which you earn An Azkaban life sentence! -refrain- Brush up your curses, Start casting them quick. Brush up your curses, Figure out what makes them tick. If some Aurors are coming to swat us, Give 'em hell with a swell Cruciatus. Whenever your situation gets serious, Save yourself with a touch of Imperius. Turn your enemies cold and cadav'rous With a well-cast Avada Kedavra. Brush up your curses, They will do the trick! Brush up your curses, Start casting them quick. Brush up your curses, Figure out what makes them tick. You'll be swell, yes, you'll be fine and dandy If you've got Unforgivables handy. Learn the right bits of doggerel in Latin And your enemies soon you'll be swattin'. There is nothing more thoroughly frightenin' Than that two words and a flash of green lightnin'. Brush up your curses, They will do the trick! Brush up your curses, Start casting them quick. Brush up your curses, Figure out what makes them tick. I must warn you, my temper it vexes When my underlings cast puny hexes. Our reputation will go out the window If the best we can cast is Diffindo. And I tell you, I don't want to see ya Fool around with the Serpensortia. Brush up your curses, They will do the trick! Brush up your curses, Start casting them quick. Brush up your curses, Figure out what makes them tick. Just Imperio the enemy factions And they'll soon learn to follow instructions. If to answer your questions they're failin', Crucio them until they start wailin'. If some good guys have ruined your fun day, Just AK them six ways from next Sunday. Brush up your curses, They will do the trick! Brush up your curses, Start casting them quick. Brush up your curses, Figure out what makes them tick. Now go out there and visit some horrors On some Muggles and Mudbloods and Aurors. Brush up your curses, They will do the trick! Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 15:18:24 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:18:24 -0000 Subject: Justafiable Means and Good using the Tools of Evil to Fight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36737 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "abigail_draconi" wrote: > Here is a semi-random question that entered my brain one fine Wen > moring. Is there a true, clear line between Good and Evil? Does a > means considered 'Evil' (use of 'dark' magic and artifacts) > automatically become good just because the 'Good' side uses it? And > who's to say that they are on the side of 'Good' in the first place? > After all, I'm sure that V's convinced 100% Right. > @--->-- Chyna Rose Unforgivable Curses. *real* Moody never used them, even after one Crouch authorised it. Crouch was not good- neither one of them, although the son was worse. None of the "good" side has EVER used one of them. Dementors. They are NOT good beings. Baddies consider obedience a virtue, goodies don't. (and I'm NOT sure which side Snape belongs to!) From trog at wincom.net Wed Mar 20 15:34:50 2002 From: trog at wincom.net (talondg) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:34:50 -0000 Subject: HRH vs Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle (Was Snape & Neville's Memory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36738 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., wrote: > Furthermore, I'm quite aware of the fact that my reading that 'Snape > might have Neville's best interests in mind' is counter-intuitive, > nonsensical in real life, and perhaps quite mistaken. I don't think so. I think you're dead on. Note that Snape can have Neville's best interests at heart, without having to be a sentimental old softie down deep. "Iron sharpens Iron" or "The best teacher is the Enemy" Snape's role is a _professor_. He is a _teacher_. And if his distain of Lockheart in CoS is any indication, he takes a good deal of pride in his profession. His job is to teach the skills he is responsible for to his students - ALL his students. He is preparing them for life outside the protected walls of Hogwarts. And I think he feels a strong sense of duty to do so. His students don't have to _like_ him, as long as they learn! Thus his frustration with Harry. He expects Harry to do exactly as he is told, pay complete attention to his lessons, and basically treat Potions (while he is in class) as if it were the most important thing in his life at that moment. He also expects Harry to respect authority, obey it absolutely, and is upset when Dumbledore strays from the letter of the law to address the intent instead. > << > So we're to believe he mistreats the Gryffindors out of kindness? One flaw in that plan, shouldn't he also mistreat the Slytherin's to encourage the same growth? > >> "kindness" is the wrong word. Perhaps "duty" is better. "I'm gonna teach these goddamn kids how to survive in the real world even if I have to kill them in the process!" OK, so why not mistreat the Slytherins then? Is he not doing them a disservice by being nice to them? 1) Snape is head-of-house for Slytherin. I expect that he expects that the other heads of houses are treating students the same way that he is, and so the Slytherins are getting mistreated in other classes. So in his class, he gives them a break 2) Snape is an ex-DE turned spy. Snape is undoubtedly very much aware that Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle Srs are all DEs. It could be dangerous to him if he mistreats their sons, and it could be very useful indeed to cultivate a good relationship with the progeny of your enemies. Certainly Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle Jrs consider Snape as an anti-Potter ally, and would be reporting on this to their fathers. It's not known if the Sr Malfoy etc. know if Snape is/was a DE, but certainly they regard him as sympathetic to their side, if not wholly "with them". Being nice to the Slytherins is thus part of his cover, and a gambit that may pay dividends in the greater war. DG From huntleyl at mssm.org Wed Mar 20 15:48:57 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:48:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Privit Drive Safety Zone and Dobby References: Message-ID: <002d01c1d026$bf5f19e0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 36739 uncmark wrote: >I have a question about the supposed safety zone at No. 4 Privit >Drive. According to Voldemort himself in GoF, he could not attack >Harry at the Dursley's "Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic to ensure >the boy's protection as long as he is in his relations care." GofF >Ch. 33. >So HOW did Dobby get in in ChoS? Agreed, he didn't physically harm >Harry, but he was able to intercept mail, cast magic on a pudding, >and do some elf-magic equivalent of Apparation. Shouldn't the magic >protect Harry from this? I pretty sure the "ancient magic" that Dumbledore invoked had alot to do with intent. Magic can be done inside the safety zone, as long as it isn't done with the *intent* to harm Harry. This may sound a little sketchy -- why would Dumbledore use a shield with such an exception? -- but at the same time, we must remember that this is *ancient magic*, which, frankly, seems to have a mind of its own. I'm sure that if there was spell Dumbledore could have used to protect Harry *no matter what* and allow him to leave the Dursley's loving care, he would have used it. However, it seems that this spell doesn't exist. Therefore, it seems that Dumbledore was forced to compromise by invoking the ancient magic stuff...it kind of sounds almost as if the magic is sentient or something, the way they talk about it. Not a spell, exactly -- but perhaps some kind of guardian radical magic conjured up by ancient wizards and not fully understood by the present wizarding population. Furthermore, Arabella would have needed to use *some* magic, I think, during her surveillance of Harry (to keep up her disguise, if she has one, etc.). That kind of cancels out the theory that the ancient magic was designed to stop *all* magic in Harry's safety zone. Furthermore, I seem to remember Arthur Weasley using quite a bit of magic during his visit in GoF. And remember, Dobby thought he was acting in Harry's best interest. He wasn't trying to harm Harry -- he was trying to save him. So the ancient magic would not have kicked in. Hmmm...makes me wonder what would happen to Ron if he got angry and cast a schoolyard curse at Harry. Of course, they aren't allowed to use magic outside of school -- but just think about it...Would the curse simply not work, or would there be adverse effects for Ron? hmmm.. laura is safe to look within and to erase all that's been and all that's been between is it gone tell me what we've won cause baby i'm not that strong and I'm walking wounded all alone all alone THE TEA PARTY Hmmm..I wonder what would have happened [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Mar 20 16:13:47 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:13:47 -0000 Subject: Privit Drive Safety Zone and Dobby In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36740 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" wrote: > I have a question about the supposed safety zone at No. 4 Privit > Drive. According to Voldemort himself in GoF, he could not attack > Harry at the Dursley's "Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic to ensure > the boy's protection as long as he is in his relations care." GofF > Ch. 33. > > So HOW did Dobby get in in ChoS? Agreed, he didn't physically harm > Harry, but he was able to intercept mail, cast magic on a pudding, > and do some elf-magic equivalent of Apparation. Shouldn't the magic > protect Harry from this? > > Opinions? > Uncmark There has been quite a bit of talk about the powers of Dobby in particular and elves in general, and the theory I prefer is the one that states that elves posses much more powerful magic than humans. That would explain why they can apparate in Hogwarts, and how was Dobby able to do all the magic at the beggining of CoS. Whatever the ancient magic may be, it doesn't affect elf powers (nothing so far can affect it except for the explicit order of the elf's owner). Of course, now you can be thinking (at least _I_ would be thinking): Why these creatures, holders of the most amazing powers, allowed themselves to be enslaved? The complete theory can be found in message 34879 (my theory, that is), but boiled down it says that elves were too powerfull to control themselves and voluntarily placed themselves into thralldom to stop themselves from missusing their powers. Hope that helps Grey Wolf From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Mar 20 16:26:28 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:26:28 -0000 Subject: Justafiable Means and Good using the Tools of Evil to Fight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36741 -Chyna Rose: > > Here is a semi-random question that entered my brain one fine Wen moring. Is there a true, clear line between Good and Evil? Does a means considered 'Evil' (use of 'dark' magic and artifacts)automatically become good just because the 'Good' side uses it? And who's to say that they are on the side of 'Good' in the first place? > > After all, I'm sure that V's convinced 100% Right. Finwitch:> > Unforgivable Curses. *real* Moody never used them, even after one Crouch authorised it. Crouch was not good- neither one of them, although the son was worse. None of the "good" side has EVER used one of them. > > Dementors. They are NOT good beings. > > Baddies consider obedience a virtue, goodies don't. (and I'm NOT sure which side Snape belongs to!) Are you sure about the real Moody? IIRC, Sirius only says (ch.27 GoF) that he tried to bring people in alive, and didn't descend to the level of the Death Eaters. He obviously didn't resign from the Aurors after they were authorized to use the Unforgiveables. Moody also brings people in alive so they can be turned over to the Dementors, and from his lines in the Pensieve, he's okay with that. I think that in the Potterverse there is a division between good and evil, but that it is shown as difficult for human beings to judge. Obedience, in the Potterverse, is not a virtue in itself, nor is it one of the traditional RL seven. In the Potterverse, it can be either good or bad, depending on who is being obeyed and for what purpose. Chivalry is one of the Gryffindor traits, according to the Hat. Chivalry implies obedience to the chivalric code, which turns on the existence of a moral order. Gryffindor represents doing what is right, rather than what is easy. Sometimes it would be easier to obey the rules than to do what is right according to chivalry, ie defend the weak and the innocent. In fact, when Harry breaks a rule for selfish purposes, he's usually punished, either directly or metaphorically with the loss of something he values. When he breaks a rule in order to defend someone weaker than himself, he's generally rewarded. Harry's judgement is shown as maturing in this area. The rescue of Norbert is carried on by wholly illegal means, for no better reason than to keep Hagrid from getting caught doing something he shouldn't have done. Harry suffers the loss of his cloak for it. In Buckbeak's case, Harry first attempts to save the hippogryff legally, and aids its escape only because he is convinced the creature is innocent and harmless if properly handled, in contrast to the dragon Norbert, whom Harry knew to be unmanageable. Pippin From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Mar 20 16:45:04 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:45:04 -0000 Subject: Dobby In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36742 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "betsyfallon" wrote: > Hi everyone. I have been having computer problems and haven't been > able to read all the back posts so I don't know if this question has > been asked before. I am utterly wild about the characters of Dobby > and Winky. I have read GoF and CoS each about three times and nowhere > can I find out how tall they are. In GoF, Winky comes into Moody's > office behind Snape and she is standing behind him and I think she is > up to his knees (?) Which makes me think that Dobby and Winky are > about three feet tall, but does anyone else know. Thanks > > Betsy The Lexicon doesn't mention any particular height, so I assume that none is given in the books (only that they are "short"). However, there are a few second-hand references. Dobby is dressed in a pillow case, which can go from 50-90 cm. Other elves dress in "tea-cozies" (put in measures yourself. I am unsure of what that may be, and haven't my translated book handy) and towels (30-60 cm, assuming they wrap themselves). This would give us elves between 40 and 70 cm, which more or less agrees with my own theory (see below). That's about the only canon we have at the moment. I imagine that Dobby will keep popping up in further books, and maybe JKR will continue to give details. However, there is another way to go at it, quite a bit more questionable, which is to base ourselves in other elves of mythology. Doing this, we have to step back to pre-Tolkien times, or to some of the independent stories of some modern authors (for example, Salvatore's Corona world). Anyway, before Tolkien transformed elves into the celestial creatures of Middle Earth, elves were just another type of Goblin, albeit generally more peaceful and undamaging to humans than the run-of-the-mill, everyday goblin. On these mythologies, elves were 30-60 cm (1-2 ft), although normally (at least in my country) closer to 50 cm. Some of them had butterfly wings in their backs (although very few were functional). Since I'm fan of these tales, I normally picture elves in HPverse 50cm in height, but (as I've already said), there's very little canon (and none of it "hard") to back-up this number. Hope that helps Grey Wolf From ladjables at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 16:44:46 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:44:46 -0000 Subject: Dobby and Arabella In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36743 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "betsyfallon" wrote: >> I am utterly wild about the characters of Dobby and Winky. I have read GoF and CoS each about three times and nowhere can I find out how tall they are. In GoF, Winky comes into Moody's office behind Snape and she is standing behind him and I think she is up to his knees (?) Which makes me think that Dobby and Winky are about three feet tall, but does anyone else know. Thanks<< Three feet sounds about right to me. Don't you just want Dobby to become a revolutionary and lead the House-Elves to freedom?! Dobby "Che" Guevara, can you see the beret replacing the tea cosy? I want me a T-shirt! Kitty wrote: >>I love Mrs. Arabella Figg! Wonder if Mr. Figg died in the war against Voldemort? What does the name Figg imply about them? Will she reveal who she is to the Dursleys? Or maybe just to Harry? Maybe her floo is how Harry will get to the Weasley's this summer! Is Hermione's house on the floo network? Anyone else join me in my curiosity about her? Do we need an acronym?<< I remember getting all excited about Mrs. Figg and doing an analysis of her first name (never mind the onomasticon says Arabella is of unknown origin)-Arabella, ars is Latin for art, skill, or simply ara for altar, and bellum, war, which convinced me that "Arabella" (warrior skill, art of war, altar of war) is actually a warrior princess disguised as an old lady. Then I realized bellus means beauty, and maybe Arabella just means beautiful, (bella the feminine form). Whichever way you cut it, she should be very interesting! Maybe Mr. Figg was killed by the Death Eaters (the Lestranges!) and Mrs. Figg is going to have it out with Mrs. Lestrange! Oh, the things I think up to keep myself amused (and torture others). Ama From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Wed Mar 20 16:53:00 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:53:00 -0000 Subject: Avery and Bloody Ambushes WAS Re: Odd parallels and FEATHERBOAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36744 I wrote: > > But, bloody ambush appreciation can co-exist with SYCOPHANTism. > It's > > the Avery thing again. Avery who is both sickened and attracted by > > violence. So then, Cindy wrote: > Sure, FEATHERBOAS can co-exist with SYCOPHANTism. Just barely, > perhaps. But I must admit I have no idea how one can wear a > FEATHERBOA and have this pity for evil underlings thing going on. > > I mean, in our many ambush scenarios, people are getting *killed*. > Wilkes dies (although not in an ambush because Elkins said I couldn't > kill him in an ambush). Couldn't kill him in an ambush? Why not? I was getting a little confused trying to keep the cells et al. in order and I missed this one. I had a vague idea that Frank Longbottom and Mad-Eyed Moody ambushed Wilkes, Rosier, and Dolohov on Snape's information... but it seems I'm behind the bloody ambush developments. So, I went to the archives to do some research on the matter. Cindy wrote (a long time ago): > Actually, Dolohov is in my ambush as well, and I'm willing to let > Frank Longbottom have a bit of the glory. I will note for the > record, however, that I think there were three Death Eaters in the > ambush (Dolohov, Rosier and Wilkes). That makes my ambush *bigger.* So Elkins wrote back: >Well, really now, Cindy. Was there ever any doubt that yours was >bigger? >Dolohov, eh? I suppose that makes sense, given Crouch's exchange with >Karkaroff in the Pensieve scene. Any chance I could convince you to >off Wilkes in an entirely separate scenario? >See, (where's the canon, where's the...) Wilkes was probably in a >different *cell,* right? Because otherwise Karkaroff would have >named him at the Pensieve hearing, along with Rosier and Dolohov. >The fact that he *didn't* name him leads me to believe that either >Wilkes was already dead by the time of Karkaroff's arrest or that >Wilkes and Karkaroff were in different "cells" of the DE >organization, and so didn't really know each other. OK. Elkins is right. Wilkes didn't die in the bloody ambush. >Either way, you need a separate scenario to account for Wilkes' >demise. Right. But two against two. That's not very impressive. So, therefore Elkins stepped in: >You still need to replace Wilkes with somebody else, though. >Perhaps, uh... Travers? How 'bout Travers? >Of course, if it's Travers, then your ambush is a tad less Bloody, as >Travers would seem to have been taken alive. But that would make >Longbottom all the more *impressive,* wouldn't it? (If somewhat less >dripping with DE blood.) Then someone had the brainstroke of adding Mulciber to the mix. So, I think I've got it. Snape gave the information which either directly or indirectly ended up in the hands of Longbottom and Moody. They went to apprehend Travers, Dolohov, Mulciber, and Rosier. Rosier was killed. Travers, Mulciber, and Dolohov taken alive. It's not nearly as bloody as I remembered it. Actual mechanics of the ambush are one's own opinion, I guess. I suppose Travers and Mulciber did survive. "But Travers and Mulciber, we have," said Mr. Crouch. (page 513) Crouch doesn't exactly say they're alive, does he? It sounds that way, perhaps, but he's responding to a list of names. He could be saying "we already have those names," couldn't he? Or maybe not. Perhaps, it was an unbloody ambush after all. DE Cells: Cindy. >To recap, then, we have Death Eater Cell 1 with Rookwood, Karkaroff, >Wilkes, Travers, Dolohov, Snape, Mulciber. We have Death Eater >Cell 2 with Pettigrew, Avery, Malfoy, MacNair, Crabbe, Goyle, Nott, >Crouch Jr., the Lestranges and . . . Bagman. IIRC, this was the result of much study on Cindy's part of Karkaroff's testimony at the hearing. She noticed that Karkaroff does not name a number of prime suspects, all at large. Therefore, she put them in Cell 2, of which Karkaroff knows nothing. Cell 1 seems to have severely suffered. :-) Bagman in Cell 2 is, of course, your call. I haven't bought into Bagman DE myself. Rookwood in Cell 1 was also heavily disputed. Would the information guy hang out in any cell? I must strongly object also to Pettigrew in Cell 2. I don't like everyone knowing Pettigrew. I want to keep it between Voldemort and Pettigrew. The cell structure still presents some oddities. Why is Avery in Cell 2? Karkaroff's evidence suggests it, but does it make much sense for Voldemort to split up Snape's gang (strongly implied to have been in the same year at Hogwarts)across the cells, thereby making them much more cognizant of each other? Anyway, we need to construct a death scenario for Wilkes. Killed by aurors, but either in Cell 2, or in Cell 1 dying before Karkaroff has been apprehended which is before the bloody ambush. How was Karkaroff apprehended? Do we have an answer for that? Is there any possibility of another ambush? GoF, page 511. "Took me six months to track him down." - Moody What if Wilkes was killed in the same action in which Karkaroff was apprehended? On to Cell 2, whose excuse seems to have been Imperius. At least, Malfoy used it, and we know that they were on trial and acquitted, so we'll presume Malfoy was typical. But, why did suspicion fall on Cell 2 in the first place? Cell 2 with Avery, Malfoy, MacNair, Crabbe, Goyle, Nott, >Crouch Jr., the Lestranges and (Bagman? Pettigrew?) Page 613 "Malfoy was cleared!" said Fudge, visibly affronted. "A very old family - donations to excellent causes -" "McNair!" Harry continued. "Also cleared! Now working for the Ministry!" "Avery - Nott - Crabbe - Goyle -" "You are merely repeating the names of those who were acquitted of being Death Eaters thirteen years ago!" said Fudge angrily. So, why were Malfoy, McNair, Avery, Nott, Crabbe, and Goyle up for trial? And presumably Mr. and Mrs. Lestrange too. (Bartie Jr., no.) The way they talk about Lucius Malfoy. The Malfoys were "Some of You- know-who's" biggest supporters" gives me suspicions. Was Malfoy all that quiet about being on Voldemort's side? Did he ever declare himself publicly? After all, in order for the story to work, the Cell 2 people had to be turning themselves in immediately. What happened that made them so certain there would be no chance of hiding? Had they already been exposed somehow? Bloody ambushes. Eileen licks her lips and then notices a note from Cindy: > Rosier dies. They probaby had a lot to live > for, too, and they valued their own evil little lives as much as > Pettigrew values his. Yet Rosier died at the hands of Moody, and > Eileen and Elkins are bouncing on the sofa. What's the difference > between Pettigrew and Rosier? And if you're mourning Rosier, why did > you rejoice in his ambush in the first place? Hmmmmm? First of all, I don't know Rosier. All we've got is his name, so I can't say I've got very emotional over him. Secondly, the reason I'm into bloody ambushes is that they are painful - for everyone involved. Weren't we trying to heap up agony and misery on Snape's head? Thirdly, you can't feel pity for the miserable characters if you're not extremely active in seeking them out. BIG BANGS are BANGY because they are heartwrenching, if you know what I mean. On to Avery. Cindy writes: >I think it is bangier to have IOHHFM, who has to suffer his internal >conflict every time the Dark Mark burns. Who has to practice his >Crucio curses so they hit their targets instead of hitting the DE >who is holding the victim's hands behind his back. Who has to look >in the mirror every morning and slap his face, resolving that today >he will turn it around once and for all and be Evil To The Core. OK, do you mind if I submit this one to the Big Bang theory? Now that I think about it, I am going to wrap up all of my theories into one gigantic mega-theory, a theory substantial enough to swallow the entire Potterverse: The Big Bang Theory. Cindy on introducing the Big Bang Theory, which has since revolutionized the way we look at HP: >Indeed, Big Bangers have a rather rigid bright line test to assist >us in determining which theories are acceptable. If we can't >imagine a climactic, Oscar-worthy scene in which a character >chooses a dramatically different path because of a Big Event, >then the theory won't fly under Big Bang. We have no use for fuzzy >lens shots, montage sequences or soliloquies where characters >stare off into space and develop a new perspective on their >circumstances. No, Big Bangers chew the scenery. People who >drift off to buy popcorn before a Big Bang scene are going to be >completely lost for the rest of the story. And you're saying Avery looking into the mirror every morning is Bangish? Soliloquizing to himself about he will really truly be evil today? Meanwhile, Avery with remorse comes with a really Big Bangish scene in which Avery completely breaks down at the exact moment of Voldemort's destruction, and then there's that realization, and Arthur Weasley, who was patting him on the back, suddenly flinches, and backs away slowly, looking at his hands in disgust. The dementors enter and pull Avery away weeping, screaming, and generally carry on. (And you could improve the theory by adding the Missing Weasley kid and having Avery responsible for his demise, but that may be pushing it too far.) If you don't think he shows remorse, remember...... I had promised not to keep on dragging Tolkien in, but dagnabbit!... remember Smeagol/Gollum. Would anyone deny he had remorse? And, being remorseful, he tried to feed Frodo to a spider and bite off his finger. Eileen PS. Would it interest you very much to know that Avery means "King of the Elves?" No? From porphyria at mindspring.com Wed Mar 20 19:53:49 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:53:49 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Shack Flints, a drop of SUCCESS (Was: Odd parallels and FEATHERBOAS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <328BB902-3C3C-11D6-ABF7-000393465128@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36745 Cindy is at the point of finding the whole Shrieking Shack incident Flinty, so I wanted to add a couple of thoughts which might or might not clarify. Cindy asked: > What doesn't make sense to me is why Snape leaves the castle at all > if he's not going to bring the potion?? Snape doesn't know there is a > cloak available, he doesn't know the trio is out at night, he doesn't > know about Black.? Snape has to believe Lupin is going to the Shack > to transform because there's no foundation at all for Snape to > believe anything else.? Marina replied: > Yeah, that does seem a bit, uhm... plot-driven, doesn't it?? My > fanwank for it is that the potion is volatile, so that shlepping it > from Hogwarts to Hogsmeade would destroy its magical properties; and > that Snape was hoping to catch up to Lupin before the transformation > and bring him back to the castle to take the potion.? For one thing, I think Marina is right about the potion. When we first see Snape deliver the potion to Lupin, Snape makes a point of telling him to drink it up right away. Lupin does, while the goblet is still smoking. That makes me think that the potion has to be drunk while it's still hot or while whatever chemical reaction it's doing is still going on. So taking it to the Shack wouldn't have worked. I agree also with Marina that taking Lupin back to the castle might have been Snape's only option, and that might have been what he intended to do if he'd simply discovered that Lupin had zoned and was just taking a long meditative walk that night. Snape might know exactly when Lupin is supposed to transform, and IIRC there would have been plenty of time to get Lupin back to the castle before he transformed if he came willingly. However, I don't think that Snape imagines that Lupin was going to the Shack just to transform in peace. Cindy says that Snape must imagine this because he has no foundation to believe anything else. I disagree. When Snape arrives at the Shack practically the first thing he says is: "I've told the headmaster again and again that you're helping your old friend Black into the castle, Lupin, and here's the proof. Not even I dreamed you would have the nerve to use this old place as your hideout --" Snape *has* suspected Lupin all along of being in league with Black, and to me this line means that when he saw Lupin making a mad dash for the Shack that he immediately figured he was up to no good. I believe he went to the Shack expecting to find Black there as well. Marina added: > This also fits in with hints given earlier in the book that Snape is > still afraid of Lupin.? Maybe that fear's been eating away at him, > and Snape was actually looking for an excuse to face the werewolf > and prove to himself that he no longer needs arrogant Quidditch > jocks to rescue him in such situations. I like this, although I'm not sure where you see hints of Snape still being afraid of Lupin. I'm totally willing to believe that Snape was trying to redo the past by confronting Lupin and thus redeeming has past mistake in his own eyes. I have no trouble believing that Snape would have recognized James's cloak. They are very rare, Snape probably observed James using it when they were kids and he probably knew that Dumbledore wound up hanging on to the cloak to bequeath to Harry when the time came. This all strikes me as reasonable. The Shack scene is weird and complicated, but not completely Flinty. :-) OK, since don't want to make a one liner reply to Eloise's recent reply to me, I'll do it here. Darling, I will defer to your version of SUCCESS if you let me have my way defending Snape's actions on Shack night. :-) Any chance of a deal? What if there's a fifth of single malt in it for you? ~~Porphyria, who, deciding she really needs a vacation, stops by the liquor store to pick up a case of Tequila, a gross of paper umbrellas, a nice smoky Islay for Eloise, and finally heads down to the shore to see how that Fourth Man Hovercraft purchase is coming. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From naama_gat at hotmail.com Wed Mar 20 16:57:48 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:57:48 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36746 David: Hagrid is introduced in PS as the Keeper of the Keys at Hogwarts, and that is the title of the relevant chapter. In practical terms, we never see him exercise this role in the first four books. In *symbolic* terms, however, he does this a great deal both for Harry and the reader. If we think of him as introducing Harry to new themes and places, he is constantly popping up. Me: Yes! I've thought of this before and completely agree as to his "key" role regarding Harry (and reader). David: He introduces Harry to the Dursleys, and then to the magical world. He introduces all new students to Hogwarts - this is emphasised as there is no practical reason for them not using the carriages like the older students. Me: The whole first year boat trip always reads to me like a concretesized rite of passage (traveling over water, ducking under the ivy curtain, etc) ? culminating with the sorting ceremony. David: He is the first to tell Harry of Voldemort. He is instrumental in Harry's first Hogwarts meeting with Voldemort, in the Forbidden Forest. Indeed he introduces Harry to the FF itself, a metaphor for the unconscious if ever I saw one: dark, secret, forbidden, full of mysteries and monsters. (I will try to address the implications of meeting V first there another time.) Me: Yes. Very Jungian. Particularly as it's choke full of mythological creatures. David: He goes to Azkaban late in COS, introducing a key theme for POA. In POA he goes to London to get Buckbeak off, and is treated unjustly, foreshadowing the Pensieve scenes (which I see as central to GOF). His function can be used for bad as well as good: he is the key for Quirrell to get to the stone. There are some interesting consequences of this. Fifty years earlier, Riddle framed him, and Dumbledore intervened to keep him at Hogwarts. In other words, right from before the start of the series, there was an attempt to damage this role. Me: I think that these instances don't belong to the Hagrid-as-Key-Keeper category. JKR uses foreshadowing a lot in the books. It's not specifically Hagrid who is used for this. It was Molly Weasley who introduced us to the Accio spell at the beginning of GoF, for instance. Draco is the first to mention Azkaban (in CoS), Amos Diggory introduces us to the Priori Incantatum notion, Ollivander tells us that the wands share a core, etc. I also don't think that he is the *key* to Quirrell getting the stone. Fluffy was one obstacle in the way and Quirrell had to pass all of them. I didn't get the sense that Fluffy was supposed to be a more important obstacle than the others, did you? David: Three times he has introduced Harry to dragons: at Gringotts, with Norbert, and then the Horntail. I would therefore expect dragons to play a crucial role in a future book. (People have already pointed out that dragons guard Gringotts, one Weasley works there and another works with dragons suggesting a future plot tie-in.) At the end of GOF he is sent on a mission by Dumbledore, with Maxime. That signals to me that Harry will go on a mission, most probably in the next book, and likely accompanied by a companion, outside Hogwarts. I will pick this up in a future post about Harry and the feminine. Most portentously of all, one of his guises in PS is as a ferryman in charge of a three-headed dog, suggesting to me that he is foreshadowing the full arc of Harry's life and death. To emphasise this properly, he ought by rights to die himself, either just before Harry, or as foreshadowing at the end of Book 6. Me: Again, since I don't see Hagrid as *the* foreshadower, I don't think that all these things are necessarily foreshadows. I certainly don't see why it follows that if Hagrid is sent on a mission then Harry must be sent on one as well (and I really really really hope that Hagrid isn't going to die. He's my favorite character. Why are you so sure that Harry will die, by the way? Did you explain this in the predictions post you mentioned before?) David: What of his bumbling and drinking? I believe this is related to Voldemort's early attack on him. The Keeper of the Keys is damaged, and functions defectively, still mostly but not always for good. Me: I interpret this differently. Hagrid is an "inbetween" kind of figure (and this also makes him a "doorway" figure). Think of all the "inbetweeness" that he embodies: Half giant, half human Half wizard (because of being expelled) In a way, also a grown up who has not quite grown up (he constantly functions as a doorway between the children and the grown up world) He lives on and guards the border between the human world (Hogwarts) and the animal world (Forest). It is also the border between the civilised and the untame and dangerous (known and unknown). He belongs to the Hogwarts staff but lives outside the school building (part of his civlised-wilderness inbetweeness) He is keeper of the grounds, but is the main doorway through which dangerous creatures enter the school (dragons, skrewts, Fluffy) There are probably more, but it's all I can think of right now. I see the "the bumbling and drinking" as part of his inbetweeness. I don't see them as being an indication of damage, and I don't think he was damaged (as far as his symbolic function goes). Yes, he is untamed, not quite predictable, given to emotional excesses, not fully efficient, but these qualities are part of his nature, not the result of some damage inflicted on him. They are part of what makes him an inbetween figure. Kind of fuzzy aroung the edges, if you know what I mean. For me, it's also what makes him so endearing. Did I mention already that he is my favorite character? :-) Naama From imagin38 at aol.com Wed Mar 20 17:04:16 2002 From: imagin38 at aol.com (imagin38 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:04:16 EST Subject: I would like to subscribe; Thank you very much!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36747 I would like to subscribe to HP for grown ups, if possible. Thanks!! Toby Davis [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Wed Mar 20 17:10:18 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:10:18 -0000 Subject: Dobby In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36748 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: >Doing this, we have to step back to pre-Tolkien times, or to > some of the independent stories of some modern authors (for example, > Salvatore's Corona world). Anyway, before Tolkien transformed elves > into the celestial creatures of Middle Earth, elves were just another > type of Goblin, albeit generally more peaceful and undamaging to humans > than the run-of-the-mill, everyday goblin. Actually, Tolkien was going back to an earlier model, before elves became exclusively small. He couldn't stand small elves for various reasons. > On these mythologies, elves > were 30-60 cm (1-2 ft), although normally (at least in my country) > closer to 50 cm. Some of them had butterfly wings in their backs > (although very few were functional). Small elves have always been around, but aren't butterfly wings a very late addition in England? It sounds more like a Renaissance fancy than ordinary folklore. >Since I'm fan of these tales, I > normally picture elves in HPverse 50cm in height, but (as I've already > said), there's very little canon (and none of it "hard") to back-up > this number. No, I think you're right, and I think it was very courageous of Rowling to buck Tolkien's trend (however excellent) for her own. Eileen From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Mar 20 17:21:07 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:21:07 -0000 Subject: Dobby In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36749 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > Actually, Tolkien was going back to an earlier model, before elves > became exclusively small. He couldn't stand small elves for various > reasons. That's news to me. Who are those pre-short tall elves? In what mythology do they make an appearance? > > On these mythologies, elves > > were 30-60 cm (1-2 ft), although normally (at least in my country) > > closer to 50 cm. Some of them had butterfly wings in their backs > > (although very few were functional). > > Small elves have always been around, but aren't butterfly wings a > very late addition in England? It sounds more like a Renaissance > fancy than ordinary folklore. Could be. I couldn't say for sure one way or the other. Notice I was talking about MY country (which isn't England), and I'm pretty sure that some of the myths in which small elven-like winged creatures (although pretty evil) appear go back to the 11th century. Don't quote me on that, though. Those winged creatures stole babies from cradles and took them to the forests, or lured bigger children with their "angelical" faces and promises of playing, according to my folklore. > >Since I'm fan of these tales, I > > normally picture elves in HPverse 50cm in height, but (as I've > already > > said), there's very little canon (and none of it "hard") to back-up > > this number. > > No, I think you're right, and I think it was very courageous of > Rowling to buck Tolkien's trend (however excellent) for her own. > > Eileen Thanks for the back-up, Eileen. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From goddessa80 at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 15:52:15 2002 From: goddessa80 at yahoo.com (A. Harr) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 07:52:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: the letter from the Ministry and Dobby Message-ID: <20020320155215.86499.qmail@web14504.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36750 finwitch said: Speaking of Dobby... I think he was Potters' house-elf first. He's treating Harry much the way Winky does Mr. Crouch. Dobby's the /only/ house-elf in such awe for Harry. Now he wants to be free long enough for Harry to mature so he might get back to being a proper house-elf. He's also braver than Winky about his freedom... James Potter may have told him not to join them because the concealment Charm couldn't be done if you had a house-elf around... It state in COS chapter two--- "The Wizard family Dobby serves, sir... DObby is a house-elf... bound to serve one house and one family forever." and since later we find out that he's Malfoys elf... I dont think he could be the Potters old elf. Interesting that you say he's braver than winky about his freedom-- I've managed to convince myself that Dobby will die in the coming books, in some crazy heroic stunt to save Harry... after all, he was brought back in the GOF, when I wasn't expecting... and pluse he's malfoy's old elf! think of all the possibilites for the plot! ah well... people keep telling me I'm insane for this theory and sticking to it so fervently. adrienne __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/ From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Wed Mar 20 17:33:31 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:33:31 -0000 Subject: Dobby In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36751 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > > Actually, Tolkien was going back to an earlier model, before elves > > became exclusively small. He couldn't stand small elves for various > > reasons. > > That's news to me. Who are those pre-short tall elves? In what > mythology do they make an appearance? Norse mythology, and by derivation the little bit of English mythology we have. In fact, these are the original elves, since "ylf" is from the Norse. Later on, throughout the Middle ages, the denizens of faerie can be of all sizes, but there are many tall Tolkienian elves in medieval literature. It gets complicated. What is the difference between fairies and elves? They do start dwindling. And they start becoming more a part of the literary tradition than the folk tradition, to the point where they sprout gossamer wings and such stuff, and make appearances in plays. And that lies at the bottom of why Tolkien hated Shakespeare. :-) Rowling's house-elves, btw, seem taken from the story of "The Shoemaker and the Elves." As you will recall, once the shoemaker leaves out the clothes for the elves, they depart, and stop mending his shoes for him. Who would have known that the elves in that story were, under Rowling's intrepretation, emotionally crushed by the experience? Eileen PS. Rowling also had a Shakespearian backlash. Go to Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them and look up fairies. Written to spite the bard and the cultural image he created, I believe. From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Mar 20 18:08:44 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:08:44 -0000 Subject: Shack Flints, a drop of SUCCESS (Was: Odd parallels and FEATHERBOAS) In-Reply-To: <328BB902-3C3C-11D6-ABF7-000393465128@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36752 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Porphyria wrote: > Marina added: > > > This also fits in with hints given earlier in the book that Snape is > > still afraid of Lupin. Maybe that fear's been eating away at him, > > and Snape was actually looking for an excuse to face the werewolf > > and prove to himself that he no longer needs arrogant Quidditch > > jocks to rescue him in such situations. > > I like this, although I'm not sure where you see hints of Snape still > being afraid of Lupin. Mainly in the scene where Snape brings the potion to Lupin's office while Lupin and Harry are talking. I don't have my copy of PoA handy, so I can't cite it exactly, but I thought Snape's behavior in that scene is rather striking. He seems very tense; he's described as "unsmiling and watchful"; he does not produce a single sneer or sarcastic remark; his eyes dart around the room; and he backs out of the room, which to me implies that he was unwilling to turn his back on Lupin. All of which adds up to make me think that, at the very least, Lupin makes Snape *really* nervous. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From SHENmagic at aol.com Wed Mar 20 18:04:19 2002 From: SHENmagic at aol.com (SHENmagic at aol.com) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:04:19 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] ADMIN: HPFGU Status Report Message-ID: <5f.2453b54d.29ca2923@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36753 Whew! Thanks for clearing that up John! Aylihael From huntleyl at mssm.org Wed Mar 20 18:34:14 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:34:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Privit Drive Safety Zone and Dobby References: Message-ID: <006301c1d03d$d69117a0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 36754 Grey Wolf said: >There has been quite a bit of talk about the powers of Dobby in >particular and elves in general, and the theory I prefer is the one >that states that elves posses much more powerful magic than humans. >That would explain why they can apparate in Hogwarts, and how was Dobby >able to do all the magic at the beggining of CoS. Whatever the ancient >magic may be, it doesn't affect elf powers (nothing so far can affect >it except for the explicit order of the elf's owner). I too, toyed with this idea as for why Dobby could do magic in Harry's safe zone. Then I realized that Mr. Weasley did all sorts of magic there in GoF (blasting out of the fire place, shrinking Dudley's tongue back). There is really no difference between the amount of harm Dobby's pudding-smashing and Mr. Weasley's wall-blasting might/could do to Harry. Both have the potential to get him into serious caca with the Durselys and etc. Therefore, I fall back to my previous theory of intent, which I discussed in an earlier message. ^_^ *almost says "I hope that helps" and catches herself mid-sentence* How come everyone says that here for a closing? Sure, it's polite and all, but it doesn't always apply. Hum. laura i've been through the desert on a horse with no name it felt good to be out of the rain HORSE WITH NO NAME (by various artists, I have no idea who did it first) First we take Manhattan then we take Berlin LEONARD COHEN [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ladjables at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 18:38:57 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:38:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's role in Priori Incantatem In-Reply-To: <31.241b1aa5.29c9fc31@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36755 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., finwitch wrote: >>I think AD experienced PI himself - with Grindelwald. He managed to hold long enough for Grindelwald's wand to spit out ALL spells, including the one that created the wand - and THAT destroyed the wand altogether. (Harry felt his wand would be lost if he let the current go to his wand).<< Katze mentioned a similar link with Grindelwald as well, which is just fascinating. It explains why Dumbledore's reply to Sirius and Harry seemed measured. And it certainly gives him motive-if he experienced PI, then he definitely chose not to tell Harry about the possibility of meeting Voldemort's wand, which he knew was still around (I stand by my homing device theory). But is this too neat and foreshadowy for JKR? Edblanning at a... wrote: >>I don't think we have evidence that the feathers themselves are bad/good.<< But I wonder how the wandmaking process works. All we know is that a bowtruckle has to be placated in order to get wandwood from its tree (FB). How do core and wood combine to form a wand, a wand with special properties that can be channelled in a certain way by its wielder? Does the core, like a magnet, attract the wood for a special reason? Just wondering if Fawkes' feathers could have been drawn to the yew and holly or vice versa. I mean, if the wand chooses its owner, why can't the core choose the wandwood? And we know who gave the feathers to Ollivander. Eloise on Fawkes: >>He's not just a bird he's a *phoenix*. How special can you get? In fact, according to myth, well, western myth at least ( I know they occur in Chinese/Japanese myth too) there is only one. Not just special, * unique*.<< But we know in HP there are other phoenix wands (and so presumably other phoenixes) in existence. In SS, Harry tried a maple and phoenix feather wand, which did not choose him (US Edition, p. 84). He got not just a phoenix wand, but a Fawkes wand, and Ollivander goes on to explain that the only other person with a Fawkes wand is Voldemort, or more accurately the other Fawkes wand chose Tom Riddle. I know you weren't saying Fawkes is the only phoenix in HP, Eloise, I just have to blather on when I get excited! I think this offers more proof that Dumbledore arranged (eh, might be too strong a word) for Harry and Voldemort to obtain brother wands. Ama From ladjables at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 18:40:26 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:40:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's role in Priori Incantatem In-Reply-To: <31.241b1aa5.29c9fc31@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36756 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., finwitch wrote: >>I think AD experienced PI himself - with Grindelwald. He managed to hold long enough for Grindelwald's wand to spit out ALL spells, including the one that created the wand - and THAT destroyed the wand altogether. (Harry felt his wand would be lost if he let the current go to his wand).<< Katze mentioned a similar link with Grindelwald as well, which is just fascinating. It explains why Dumbledore's reply to Sirius and Harry seemed measured. And it certainly gives him motive-if he experienced PI, then he definitely chose not to tell Harry about the possibility of meeting Voldemort's wand, which he knew was still around (I stand by my homing device theory). But is this too neat and foreshadowy for JKR? Edblanning at a... wrote: >>I don't think we have evidence that the feathers themselves are bad/good.<< But I wonder how the wandmaking process works. All we know is that a bowtruckle has to be placated in order to get wandwood from its tree (FB). How do core and wood combine to form a wand, a wand with special properties that can be channelled in a certain way by its wielder? Does the core, like a magnet, attract the wood for a special reason? Just wondering if Fawkes' feathers could have been drawn to the yew and holly or vice versa. I mean, if the wand chooses its owner, why can't the core choose the wandwood? And we know who gave the feathers to Ollivander. Eloise on Fawkes: >>He's not just a bird he's a *phoenix*. How special can you get? In fact, according to myth, well, western myth at least ( I know they occur in Chinese/Japanese myth too) there is only one. Not just special, * unique*.<< But we know in HP there are other phoenix wands (and so presumably other phoenixes) in existence. In SS, Harry tried a maple and phoenix feather wand, which did not choose him (US Edition, p. 84). He got not just a phoenix wand, but a Fawkes wand, and Ollivander goes on to explain that the only other person with a Fawkes wand is Voldemort, or more accurately the other Fawkes wand chose Tom Riddle. I know you weren't saying Fawkes is the only phoenix in HP, Eloise, I just have to blather on when I get excited! I think this offers more proof that Dumbledore arranged (eh, might be too strong a word) for Harry and Voldemort to obtain brother wands. Ama From ladjables at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 19:46:08 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 19:46:08 -0000 Subject: Grindelwald, Trelawney and fuzzy timelines... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36757 Sorry about that double post everyone, my computer's playing the fool. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., I (ladjables) babbled: >> Say Trelawney predicted a dark wizard who had the power to elude death could only be foiled by someone with this ability. Dumbledore is privy to this information. If Tom Riddle was able to pick the phoenix wand, long before Voldemort even existed, then Dumbledore may have had some foresight into the matter and planned the duel between evil wizard and good wizard for over 50 years, at most.<< I then went on to say maybe Dumbledore gave the first feather a) innocently or b)for someone Good, and when he became aware of Tom Riddle's true nature, either naturally or because of Trelawney's prediction, he gave another plume to Ollivander. Now here I am going on about a 50 year old prediction and I'm not really sure how old Trelawney is. I mean, I get the impression she IS old, but there doesn't seem to be anything in the text to support or refute this. >From their ages we know McGonagall, Hagrid and Tom Riddle were all at school together (not necessarily the same class though) but could Trelawney also have been a contemporary? Could she have made her first real prediction as a teenager, and the Transfiguration teacher Dumbledore got wind of it? Which was why he observed Tom so closely and why he later had another Fawkes wand created? Perhaps this is why he keeps Trelawney on at school, because he realized she is a true Seer, and it's just Sibyll's histrionic personality that gets in the way. Maybe she can only make important predictions at certain junctures in her life-once in her youth, once at her peak, and once before death. Who knows? Having the Sight doesn't mean you'll See all the time. I'm getting confused with the timelines. How old is Lord Voldemort now? 75? And Grindelwald, for instance. He was destroyed by Dumbledore in 1945, Riddle would have been about 18. Could Grindelwald have been the last great DADA teacher? Could he have taught Tom Riddle, and that's why it's been impossible to secure a qualified DADA teacher, becuse of the stigma attached to that post? Goodness, I'm really turning Hogwarts into Fate's crucible, aren't I? Young Sibyll predicting Head Boy Tom is going to turn evil, Rubeus trying to persuade Minerva not to turn her into a teacup, Professor Grindelwald glowering in the corridors, Professor Dumbledore observing from the sidelines. But it would make such a great backstory, even if it's relegated to footnotes in JKR's Hogwart's Encyclopaedia. Ama From editor at texas.net Wed Mar 20 20:25:54 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:25:54 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dobby References: Message-ID: <007301c1d04d$70cc9740$ce7c63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36758 I will not expound upon this, because it strayeth off topic, except for one clarification. > > That's news to me. Who are those pre-short tall elves? In what > > mythology do they make an appearance? > > Norse mythology, and by derivation the little bit of English > mythology we have. In fact, these are the original elves, since "ylf" > is from the Norse. Germanic. Norse is a subset thereof, but it is the Germanic mythos you seek. I believe there are elf-like beings in Slavic mythology as well, but I don't recall precisely. England counts as Germanic, but the roots of English myth and legend, like the English language, span at least two major groups--Germanic and Romance (Latinate). This, all grafted onto an island that had been thoroughly settled by Celtic peoples, who had in turn supplanted a misty, little-known pre-Celtic population. The English faerie are small, but it's been speculated that this was based on myth remnants from the Celtic population of the isles; they came into contact and probably conflict with the pre-Celtic population, which if memory serves, were not physically large. These ethnic memory remnants, filtered through a couple layers of language and culture, could have been a source of the mythos type of smaller otherbeings. The point is, I suppose, that unless you dabble in linguistics or comparative mythology, and you're of English or English-derived extraction, you expects your elf-y and goblin-y types to be small, you does. So house-elves and goblins are. So I expounded. So sue me. --Amanda, who will *not* recommend that this very OT thread go to Chatter because that would be the responsible and mature thing to do, and she's got an image as a poltergeist to protect, nyah, nyah :::soft "ploof" as anonymous water balloon is dropped on the head of Moderator with Rock::: From betsyfallon at hotmail.com Wed Mar 20 19:49:59 2002 From: betsyfallon at hotmail.com (betsyfallon) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 19:49:59 -0000 Subject: Figg and Compassion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36759 Well, it's obvious my definition of compassion differs slightly. I can understand a dislike for the felines (sorry, I don't want to offend anyone). I guess I'll have to re-read that part over. Betsy From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 20:43:25 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 20:43:25 -0000 Subject: Justafiable Means and Good using the Tools of Evil to Fight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36760 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > -Chyna Rose: > > > Here is a semi-random question that entered my brain one > fine Wen moring. Is there a true, clear line between Good and > Evil? Does a means considered 'Evil' (use of 'dark' magic and > artifacts)automatically become good just because the 'Good' > side uses it? And who's to say that they are on the side of 'Good' > in the first place? > > > After all, I'm sure that V's convinced 100% Right. > > Finwitch:> > > Unforgivable Curses. *real* Moody never used them, even after > one Crouch authorised it. Crouch was not good- neither one of > them, although the son was worse. None of the "good" side has > EVER used one of them. > > > > Dementors. They are NOT good beings. > > > > Baddies consider obedience a virtue, goodies don't. (and I'm > NOT sure which side Snape belongs to!) > > > Are you sure about the real Moody? IIRC, Sirius only says (ch.27 > GoF) that he tried to bring people in alive, and didn't descend to > the level of the Death Eaters. He obviously didn't resign from the > Aurors after they were authorized to use the Unforgiveables. > Moody also brings people in alive so they can be turned over to > the Dementors, and from his lines in the Pensieve, he's okay > with that. At least he tried to avoid it the best he could. Much unlike Voldemort who uses Crucio on regular basis. And DEs as well. With no remorse. > I think that in the Potterverse there is a division between good > and evil, but that it is shown as difficult for human beings to > judge. Obedience, in the Potterverse, is not a virtue in itself, nor > is it one of the traditional RL seven. In the Potterverse, it can be > either good or bad, depending on who is being obeyed and for > what purpose. Not who. Doing something just because X says so is not good. Never mind who the X is. Molly is *good* person, but that doesn't mean the twins should abandon their dream just because she says so. Sirius has a good reason to tell Harry not to get involved with Krum (who very well might be under Imperius and told to do AK on Harry). Yet, it doesn't mean Harry should do it just because he's told to do so. Even so, these parental figures can be trusted to possibly know more and to care for you - the sort worth obeying most of the time. > Chivalry is one of the Gryffindor traits, according to the Hat. > Chivalry implies obedience to the chivalric code, which turns on > the existence of a moral order. Gryffindor represents doing what > is right, rather than what is easy. Sometimes it would be easier > to obey the rules than to do what is right according to chivalry, ie > defend the weak and the innocent. > > In fact, when Harry breaks a rule for selfish purposes, he's > usually punished, either directly or metaphorically with the loss > of something he values. When he breaks a rule in order to > defend someone weaker than himself, he's generally rewarded. Chivalry. Yes.. has to do with human rights, ethics etc. Doing what's Right. Doing good instead of evil. Defending those who can't defend themselves. (like Neville who wasn't there when Malfoy stole his remembrall). Well well, we have yet to see will a Gryffindor stand up for the poor little animals abused in class. Say - Harry opposing turning a snake into a stick without at least asking the snake's permission first. Neville opposing powdering beetles for a potion. > Harry's judgement is shown as maturing in this area. The > rescue of Norbert is carried on by wholly illegal means, for no > better reason than to keep Hagrid from getting caught doing > something he shouldn't have done. Harry suffers the loss of his > cloak for it. Yet... What would have happened to the egg if Hagrid didn't get it? Little Norbert might have died for no good reason. This way, the little dragon was saved, sent to an expert in Dragon handling. But, they should not have been so overjoyed about Malfoy getting detention when he wasn't exactly doing anything wrong. > In Buckbeak's case, Harry first attempts to save the hippogryff > legally, and aids its escape only because he is convinced the > creature is innocent and harmless if properly handled, in > contrast to the dragon Norbert, whom Harry knew to be > unmanageable. That still doesn't mean the little Dragon didn't have right to live. Krum lost points for damaging the dragons. -- Does one need to kill a dragon in order to get it's heart-string for a wand, BTW? Risky business anyway. Not that Harry&Co. never do anything wrong, but well, I'd see Dumbledore as /the/ Good One. Dumbledore /never/ demands for obedience just because he says so. He prefers requests to commands, possibly because if he happens to change his mind, it's easier to cancel. And one thing that definately puts Dumbledore as GOOD - no killing or torturing - when he's furious, he stupefies/breaks a door and even that was to save Harry! And about him looking scary... well, a strong wizard who is furious *is* scary. From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Mar 20 20:47:13 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 20:47:13 -0000 Subject: Privit Drive Safety Zone and Dobby In-Reply-To: <006301c1d03d$d69117a0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36761 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" wrote: > I too, toyed with this idea as for why Dobby could do magic in Harry's safe zone. Then I realized that Mr. Weasley did all sorts of magic there in GoF (blasting out of the fire place, shrinking Dudley's tongue back). There is really no difference between the amount of harm Dobby's pudding-smashing and Mr. Weasley's wall-blasting might/could do to Harry. Both have the potential to get him into serious caca with the Durselys and etc. Therefore, I fall back to my previous theory of intent, which I discussed in an earlier message. ------------- Which doesn't mean that my theory doesn't aply; Although it's altoghether possible that most wizards can opperate magic in the safe zonesince, let's be honest, we've got absolutely no idea of how it's suppose to work. Maybe you just cannot apparate (which would not be the same as floo-ing), and they relay in the powerful DADA teacher Mrs. Figg to counter any other intrussion. Or maybe not, this was just off the top of my head. Whatever the crcunstances, I still believe that there is very little any human wizard can do to stop a determined elf from meddling if he had been ordered to. > ^_^ *almost says "I hope that helps" and catches herself mid-sentence* How come everyone says that here for a closing? Sure, it's polite and all, but it doesn't always apply. Hum. > > laura You mean, someone is using MY traditional goodbye phrase without my knowing? /Grey Wolf hurries to check the search feature/ It does seems to be catching, doesn't it? I know it doesn't always aply, but it's a short sort of signature (my regular one is far too long to write it every time in web-view, and I've grown accustomed to using this little one in HP4GU) Anyway, hope that helps ;-) Grey Wolf From lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu Wed Mar 20 21:59:43 2002 From: lee_hillman at urmc.rochester.edu (gwendolyngrace) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 21:59:43 -0000 Subject: Something Completely Different: Class Schedules Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36762 Hi, folks. Call me obsessive. Actually, call me bored. I embarked on a truly insane journey this week. I decided to put together a sample "master schedule" of Hogwarts classes. We've discussed in various threads the type of schedule that kids have. Some of the discussion has been an attempt to determine whether one could run the school with only one professor for each area (i.e., one Transfiguration teacher for the school, one potions prof, etc.). Some of the discussion focused on whether the kids take any core classes such as English, Math, and Literature. Still other parts of the discussion asked questions of a cultural nature, such as whether there is any music or art education. Well, I tried to pull all this together to figure out how the class schedule might look. I started by figuring out the number of classes each professor had to teach. I took into account things like Double Herbology, where the kids were paired with another house of their year and the class seemed to be twice the normal length, and Double Divination, where although the class was twice the length, Gryffindors seemed to attend it alone. Once I knew how many classes (and in what units) they occurred, I began to fill in my schedules. I can post the document to the files section, but it's a bit difficult to follow. The long and short of my results are that it is *just* possible to schedule the required number of classes for one professor, provided the professors don't mind only having one hour free most days (including lunch), and only 2 or 3 free periods outside of the lunch hour. That doesn't seem very likely, since most teachers don't constantly teach every day. However, it doesn't work in Divination, unless the 4th year is the only year when it is double the length, or unless there are years where houses are combined (such as the same year as Harry, but Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff take it together). In all core subjects, it's also only possible if the kids only take each class once per week. A MWF and TTh schedule would require at least one other teacher per subject, probably 2. However, the class schedule as it stands has some interesting properties. Allowing only one class per subject per house/year per week, the kids have a maximum of 12 classes per week--and we know that that's impossible, because in PoA, when Hermione signs up for everything, she has classes that conflict. Owing to the way I filled in at random, but making sure there were no cases where the same house/year had two classes at once, some days are completely empty, while others are very full, but that could be portioned out better by someone with more time and energy and interest than I had. But on the whole, on average, what I wound up with were schedules that were very lightly populated. If only 12-14 hours are taken up by curriculum, plus 5 lunches, there are many unaccounted hours left. Now, there's also Astronomy, which is held at night, so there may be a reason to leave a class's schedule open on the morning following that class. But even allowing that a class meeting at midnight would not have a 9:00 the next morning, there are large gaps. Might it be possible that these gaps (becuase they're not taking more than two periods of a subject per week) be due to the liberal arts curriculum? It's either that, or the kids have no excuse to need the library at night. Gotta go. Please discuss amongst yourselves. I hope I've explained this clearly enough. Gwen From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 21:24:22 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 21:24:22 -0000 Subject: the letter from the Ministry and Dobby In-Reply-To: <20020320155215.86499.qmail@web14504.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36763 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "A. Harr" wrote: > > It state in COS chapter two--- "The Wizard family > Dobby serves, sir... DObby is a house-elf... bound to > serve one house and one family forever." > and since later we find out that he's Malfoys elf... I > dont think he could be the Potters old elf. As I see it... He's bound to serve Potter Family. They wished him to leave for the Secret Charm. It's not like House-elf can't leave and find another family. Malfoys this time. (someone suggested he might hear something that might endanger a Potter in there - Dumbledore perhaps). So, the bound was made when he entered the house. He hears that the reason he had to leave Potters is broken and one family-member is alive - one who also beated Voldemort! He desires to return. He gets the Malfoy- bound broken - assisted by Harry Potter. However, Harry Potter is not yet full-grown, he's unable to have a house-elf, living with Muggles. Dobby's presence *here* will get Harry Potter in trouble... Then, he and winky get into Hogwarts. The Galleon is symbolic - Dobby's free to leave any time he wants, but he's as near to Harry Potter as he can. Anyway, Dobby's little clue about Tom Riddle -- as much as he could. "bound to serve one house and one family forever". He says this when warning Harry Potter and giving him answers. This could well be the same sort of clue. > Interesting that you say he's braver than winky about > his freedom-- I've managed to convince myself that > Dobby will die in the coming books, in some crazy > heroic stunt to save Harry... after all, he was > brought back in the GOF, when I wasn't expecting... > and pluse he's malfoy's old elf! think of all the > possibilites for the plot! He might very well do something - he's not yet totally free - he can't speak of the Malfoys yet, but he may one day do so. For this to happen, Dobby must rebound. For that to happen, Harry must move into Wizarding Family. So 1) Sirius gets free -- or 2)Harry goes to live with Weasleys. In case 2)... Wouldn't Molly be happy to have a house-elf around to help? Winky will be taking care of Crouch Jr., I suppose. From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 22:10:55 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 22:10:55 -0000 Subject: Dobby In-Reply-To: <007301c1d04d$70cc9740$ce7c63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36764 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda" wrote: > I will not expound upon this, because it strayeth off topic, except for one > clarification. > > > > That's news to me. Who are those pre-short tall elves? In what > > > mythology do they make an appearance? > > > > Norse mythology, and by derivation the little bit of English > > mythology we have. In fact, these are the original elves, since "ylf" > > is from the Norse. > > Germanic. Norse is a subset thereof, but it is the Germanic mythos you seek. There's some Finnish tradition, too - a creature called "tonttu" - a being that looked after things in a certain building. But they weren't nearly as nice as Rowling's house-elves - if humans offended them, they got angry and did something nasty to them... A bit like Peeves, I suppose. It was customary to thank them by leaving them a plateful of porridge every Yule -- so they were paid- sort of! Shoue-maker and the elves... Yes, that's what I figured about elves leaving after getting clothes... From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 21:56:42 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 21:56:42 -0000 Subject: HRH vs Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle (Was Snape & Neville's Memory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36765 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "talondg" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., wrote: > > > Furthermore, I'm quite aware of the fact that my reading that 'Snape > > might have Neville's best interests in mind' is counter- intuitive, > > nonsensical in real life, and perhaps quite mistaken. > > I don't think so. I think you're dead on. > > Note that Snape can have Neville's best interests at heart, without > having to be a sentimental old softie down deep. > > "Iron sharpens Iron" or "The best teacher is the Enemy" Enemy? Experience where I come from. And I don't get that Iron sharpening Iron - we use sort of stone to sharpen our metal instruments. And if it's about fighting... "Grasp a sword, drown by a sword". > Snape's role is a _professor_. He is a _teacher_. And if his distain > of Lockheart in CoS is any indication, he takes a good deal of pride > in his profession. > > His job is to teach the skills he is responsible for to his students - > ALL his students. He is preparing them for life outside the protected > walls of Hogwarts. And I think he feels a strong sense of duty to do > so. > > His students don't have to _like_ him, as long as they learn! But he's NOT doing well with it! > Thus his frustration with Harry. He expects Harry to do exactly as he > is told, pay complete attention to his lessons, and basically treat > Potions (while he is in class) as if it were the most important thing > in his life at that moment. He also expects Harry to respect > authority, obey it absolutely, and is upset when Dumbledore strays > from the letter of the law to address the intent instead. That's his worst fault. Absolute obedience? Voldemort wants absolute obedience from his inferiors, and if Snape's doing same, it puts him in a bad light. And if Harry did that, how could he resist Imperius Curse? > > So we're to believe he mistreats the Gryffindors out of kindness? > One flaw in that plan, shouldn't he also mistreat the Slytherin's to > encourage the same growth? > > >> > > "kindness" is the wrong word. Perhaps "duty" is better. > > "I'm gonna teach these goddamn kids how to survive in the real world > even if I have to kill them in the process!" He got it all wrong. Snarling insults at students never helps them to learn. Besides, he's illogical on how a Gryffindor is supposed to be. He yells at them when they don't help Neville *and* when they do help him. Giving penalty to Hermione for giving correct answers? No - he's giving them penalties no matter WHAT they do in his class. It's obvious, however, that Sprout has been able to get the forgetful Neville to learn - as did Lupin. They are far better in the art of teaching. And Neville can Transfigure at least, so I suppose he's learned something from McGonagall, too - but nothing from Snape. > OK, so why not mistreat the Slytherins then? Is he not doing them a > disservice by being nice to them? > > 1) Snape is head-of-house for Slytherin. I expect that he expects that > the other heads of houses are treating students the same way that he > is, and so the Slytherins are getting mistreated in other classes. So > in his class, he gives them a break Yes... I suppose he might think so. Slytherin's aren't in same class with Gryffindors in Transfiguration, unfortunately. Yet, I think the others don't show that kind of favoritism. Not Hufflepuff who values fair play. Not the Gryffindor who'd find it un-chivalry... > 2) Snape is an ex-DE turned spy. Snape is undoubtedly very much aware > that Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle Srs are all DEs. It could be dangerous > to him if he mistreats their sons, and it could be very useful indeed > to cultivate a good relationship with the progeny of your enemies. > > Certainly Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle Jrs consider Snape as an > anti-Potter ally, and would be reporting on this to their fathers. > It's not known if the Sr Malfoy etc. know if Snape is/was a DE, but > certainly they regard him as sympathetic to their side, if not wholly > "with them". > > Being nice to the Slytherins is thus part of his cover, and a gambit > that may pay dividends in the greater war. Possibly - and Slytherin's trust him rather than Dumbledore. Everyone needs someone to trust. From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Mar 20 21:16:50 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 21:16:50 -0000 Subject: Grindelwald, Trelawney and fuzzy timelines... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36766 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ladjables" wrote: > I'm getting confused with the timelines. How old is Lord Voldemort > now? 75? And Grindelwald, for instance. He was destroyed by > Dumbledore in 1945, Riddle would have been about 18. Could > Grindelwald have been the last great DADA teacher? Could he have > taught Tom Riddle, and that's why it's been impossible to secure a > qualified DADA teacher, becuse of the stigma attached to that post? Timelines: the chamber of secrets was opened in Harry's second year. Thanks to Nick's deathday party we know (assuming he doesn't lie about it) that it happens in 1992. Tom Riddle oppened the chamber 50 years before that, in 1942, when he was in fith year (thus, 15 years old then and now [2002] he would be 75, although he'll have died at 70 by 1997[book 7]). That means that, indeed, he could have been taught by Grindewald. However, although it fits the timeline, I found it VERY unlikely unless you find some harder canon evidence. Anyway, I hope you find the timelines useful (if you decide to develop a proper theory). Hope that helps Grey Wolf From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Mar 20 22:41:19 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 22:41:19 -0000 Subject: HRH vs Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle (Was Snape & Neville's Memory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36767 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "talondg" wrote: > OK, so why not mistreat the Slytherins then? Is he not doing them a > disservice by being nice to them? > > 1) Snape is head-of-house for Slytherin. I expect that he expects that > the other heads of houses are treating students the same way that he > is, and so the Slytherins are getting mistreated in other classes. So > in his class, he gives them a break If that's what Snape thinks, then he's not that far off. We don't know if Slytherins are being unfairly treated in their classes, since it's not something Harry is in a position to pick up on, but there was Dumbledore's public humiliation of the entire House in PS/SS. And all the non-Slytherin students are pretty open about despising them. If there's one thing the Slytherins *don't* need to be taught it's the idea that they live in a hostile world where everyone's banded against them. They're far more in need of learning that there's at least one person in authority who's unequivocally on their side. There are times that I really wish that the books weren't limited to Harry's POV, because I'd really love to see how Snape deals with his duties as head of Slytherin House. How much does he interact with them outside of classes. Is he absent except in emergencies, like McGonnagal, or is he more involved? Does he reprimand them when for misbehavior when there aren't any non-Slytherins looking? Enquiring minds want to know. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 22:43:02 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 22:43:02 -0000 Subject: Shack Flints, a drop of SUCCESS (Was: Odd parallels and FEATHERBOAS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36768 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > > Mainly in the scene where Snape brings the potion to Lupin's office > while Lupin and Harry are talking. I don't have my copy of PoA handy, > so I can't cite it exactly, but I thought Snape's behavior in that > scene is rather striking. He seems very tense; he's described as > "unsmiling and watchful"; he does not produce a single sneer or > sarcastic remark; his eyes dart around the room; and he backs out of > the room, which to me implies that he was unwilling to turn his back > on Lupin. All of which adds up to make me think that, at the very > least, Lupin makes Snape *really* nervous. Snape's Worst Fear is definately werewolf! From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Mar 20 23:26:33 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 23:26:33 -0000 Subject: Wands& Phoenix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36769 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ladjables" wrote: > Edblanning at a... wrote: > >>I don't think we have evidence that the feathers themselves are > bad/good.<< > > But I wonder how the wandmaking process works. All we know is that a > bowtruckle has to be placated in order to get wandwood from its tree > (FB). How do core and wood combine to form a wand, a wand with > special properties that can be channelled in a certain way by its > wielder? Does the core, like a magnet, attract the wood for a > special reason? Just wondering if Fawkes' feathers could have been > drawn to the yew and holly or vice versa. I mean, if the wand > chooses its owner, why can't the core choose the wandwood? And we > know who gave the feathers to Ollivander. And I don't believe a wand - or wand-incredient can be "good" or "evil" --- just because Mr. Psycho uses a knife to kill doesn't make his knife evil, does it? Wand's a tool - and tools don't have good/evil intentions! But "Wand chooses a wizard" - and "you don't get as good results with someone elses wand as you do with your own". Well - I just thought about something. When it's YOUR wand, or one of your family member's - you can do magic without pronouncing the spell. Watch little Kevin enlarging the slug by merely tapping it with Daddy's wand - compared to false Moody using real Moody's wand to enlarge the Spider - *with* pronounced spell. Voldemort made Harry's spine bend -- no pronounced spell... Mr. Ollivander didn't need pronounced spells with those wands that were his to test them, but did with those that weren't. Remember Harry shouting sparks from his wand, when he doesn't know what to expect, when he only waved it to see if it fits? Also, wand has 3 qualities: core, wood and length. Each needs to be the proper one for the wand to suit a wizard. The Maple-Phoenix Harry tried simply didn't have the right wood for Harry Potter - and it wasn't the proper length, either. > Eloise on Fawkes: > >>He's not just a bird he's a *phoenix*. How special can you get? In > fact, according to myth, well, western myth at least ( I know they > occur in Chinese/Japanese myth too) there is only one. Not just > special, * unique*.<< > > But we know in HP there are other phoenix wands (and so presumably > other phoenixes) in existence. In SS, Harry tried a maple and > phoenix feather wand, which did not choose him (US Edition, p. 84). Wrong wood. Wrong length. > He got not just a phoenix wand, but a Fawkes wand, and Ollivander > goes on to explain that the only other person with a Fawkes wand is > Voldemort, or more accurately the other Fawkes wand chose Tom > Riddle. I know you weren't saying Fawkes is the only phoenix in HP, > Eloise, I just have to blather on when I get excited! I think this > offers more proof that Dumbledore arranged (eh, might be too strong a > word) for Harry and Voldemort to obtain brother wands. He *can* not arrange it! For one thing, a phoenix only usually gives one feather. Did Fawkes do incarnation in between, or were the feathers given at the same time? Besides, I doubt Dumbledore had *any* control over what wand suits Harry. "Curious" said Mr. Ollivander. He was extremely surprised of the fact that Harry Potter happened to get the brother-wand to the one who gave him the scar! "Great deeds" - with a phoenix wand. Powerful magic. Patronus as a third-year sounds like that, I'd say. From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Wed Mar 20 23:44:28 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 23:44:28 -0000 Subject: Dobby In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36770 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > > Eileen > > PS. Rowling also had a Shakespearian backlash. Go to Fantastic Beasts > and Where to Find them and look up fairies. Written to spite the bard > and the cultural image he created, I believe. I think JKR has a Wagnerian-Tolkenian= McCaffreyian backlash as well, in light of her staggeringly dense (if accurately Reptilian) dragons. - CMC From cindysphynx at comcast.net Wed Mar 20 23:56:53 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 23:56:53 -0000 Subject: Who's Afraid Of The Big, Bad Wolf? (WAS Odd parallels and FEATHERBOAS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36771 Marina wrote (about my creeping suspicion that Snape has no good motivation to leave the castle in the first place): > Yeah, that does seem a bit, uhm... plot-driven, doesn't it? Ah, well, maybe so, although opinions obviously differ. I think my problem, when you boil it right down, is that I generally expect characters to react to the objective facts and be motivated by those facts, not motivated just by feelings. As I said, I think the facts point to Snape being motivated to stay in the castle. Snape doesn't like Lupin based on feelings and bias perhaps, but maybe that's enough motivation to make Snape's actions credible. So, everyone, when one is analyzing whether an author has established a proper motivation for a character's actions, what are we supposed to consider? As I said before, I think the objective facts suggest Lupin is headed to the Shack to transform, so Snape is lacking a good reason to leave the castle. But then again, maybe JKR doesn't need objective facts in order to justify Snape's actions because his feelings are so strong. Hmmmm. Marina again: > This also fits in with hints given earlier in the book that Snape >is > still afraid of Lupin. I hadn't considered the possibility that Snape is afraid of Lupin. I kind of reached the opposite conclusion: that Snape doesn't fear Lupin, Black, Dumbledore or anyone in the wizarding world except . . . Moody. ::smiles at the idea that she now has an additional reason to like Moody:: There is a canon clue, after all, that Snape does not fear Lupin: "Lupin!" Snape called into the fire. "I want a word!" Yup, Snape doesn't hesitate for one minute about summoning Lupin to his office. Snape also feels quite comfortable glaring at Lupin and acting up (ridiculing Neville) in Snape's presence. He also thinks nothing of criticizing Lupin to Dumbledore in the presence of Percy, and he does it again when he substitutes for Lupin and criticizes him in front of the DADA class. Snape probably wouldn't do those things to someone he feared or even respected. I mean, I can't imagine Snape summoning Moody like that unless Snape was on fire. That Moody . . . Moody chills Snape right to the bone, doesn't he? Snape doesn't dare display open hostility toward Moody like he does toward the other DADA teachers. And in GoF, Snape changes abruptly on the staircase when Moody shows up. Snape is ordering Filch around and snapping at Filch. But when Moody arrives, "Snape stops talking abruptly." A vein "flickered horribly on Snape's greasy temple." The normally-articulate Snape starts speaking in incomplete sentences. Snape uses a soft voice, a "voice of forced calm" and speaks through clenched teeth. Then Snape retreats, saying "I think I will go back to bed." The comparison between Snape's conduct with Moody versus Lupin suggests that Snape isn't the least bit afraid of Lupin, I'd say. Sirius isn't intimidated by Lupin, either. Sirius is lunging at Peter and heckling Lupin during Lupin's werewolf adventures speech, so he isn't at all afraid of Lupin. The only person who seems to be terrified of Lupin is, uh, Scabbers. And maybe Crookshanks. :-) Cindy From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Mar 21 00:25:50 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 00:25:50 -0000 Subject: Still-Life With Memory Charm In-Reply-To: <005701c1cb55$a460f1c0$a920a4d5@satec.es> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36772 Much Ado About Memory Charms. Some thoughts about Neville and his proposed Memory Charm: the extent to which the textual suggestions of its existence may or may not seem "obviously" planted there by the author; its overall canonical plausibility; its specific mechanics; and questions as to what its purpose might be, both from the in-world perspective of the Potterverse characters themselves and from the authorial perspective of narrative function. Also, a bit of Sneaky!Neville, and a little bit of Snape. ----- On the question of whether or not the possibility that Neville's memory problems might be the result of a memory charm was "obviously" suggested by the text, David wrote: > The question I really want to know the answer to is, what is it > about us that makes things that are obvious to one person obscure > to another? I think that this may have a great deal to do with pattern recognition, which is largely a matter of training. Someone with a background in literary analysis is going to have been trained to notice certain types of patterns, someone with a background in linguistics others, and someone with a background in comparative religion still others. All three of these people are humanities types, but they're still not likely to notice the same sorts of things, nor to consider the same things "obvious." I also think that this is often nothing more than a matter of pure idiosyncracy, or sometimes simply one of chance. Take mystery novels, for example. The mystery novel that you found profoundly unsatisfying because the solution was just far too "obvious" might be one that utterly stymied me -- and vice versa. Often I think that this comes down to little more than dumb luck: one person happens to spot the relevant clue that causes him to start thinking along the right lines; the other person just doesn't happen to pick up on that one because his attention was flagging while he was reading that particular passage, or because the clue in question was about a dog and this reader just isn't interested in animals, or because some random "Ah-hah!" neuron didn't fire at just the right time, or whatever. And of course, one can all too easily find something "obvious," and yet still be completely wrong in the end. As indeed, people may well be when it comes to the memory charm theory. > On OT-Chatter I theorised that it has, at least in part, to do with > the 'two cultures' divide between scientists and humanists. > Thoughts? I'm always suspicious about that "two cultures" divide, partly because while I've always been an artsy-fartsy humanities type myself, I've also always been interested in stereotypical geek pursuits (RPGs, interactive fiction, science fiction, etc.), which are -- or used to be, at any rate -- mainly the province of the math- science folk. I've therefore spent much of my life hanging out with computer programmers and engineers and physicists, and all that lot, and I have to say that I've never really noticed all that strict a division in terms of how the two types think or perceive or analyze. Whatever differences in thought might exist between these two academic groupings pale in significance, IME, next to the differences encouraged by other quasi-cultural divides, such as theoretical/practical (the physicists vs. the engineers, for example), or conventional/iconoclastic, or Geek/Jock, or pacifist/militarist, or even smoker/non-smoker. That's been my experience, anyway. Obviously others' mileages may (and likely do) vary. But as to the Memory Charm Theory itself, I wouldn't say that I consider it "obvious." It did occur to me as a possibility when I read GoF for the first time, and upon second reading, as I observed in a more analytical fashion the specific things that had *led* me to consider it, I did indeed find myself suspecting that the author might have deliberately designed the text to draw the reader to this conclusion. But unlike many others here, I'm not absolutely convinced that she did. It doesn't seem so very "obvious" to me that I feel at all comfortable ruling out the possibility that all of the textual suggestions of Neville as the recipient of a memory charm might not have been in fact utterly unintended by the author. I do think, though, that the arguments for believing them to have been authorial intent are very compelling. Kelly undertook the task of listing those textual suggestions: > * We are told that, while at Hogwarts, Bertha Jorkins was a gossip > with a steel-trap mind. > * We are told that later in her life, while working at the MoM, she > bacame forgetful, a bungler shuffled from department to department. > * We are told Crouch Sr. placed a memory charm on her. [sidenote: > While it is implied, I don't think JKR ever states that the Memory > Charm caused the decline of Bertha Jorkins's mental processes. klh] Maybe JKR doesn't, but in his veritaserum confession of Chapter 35, Younger Crouch does. Or at least, he reports that his father had claimed this to be the case: "He put a very powerful Memory Charm on her to make her forget what she'd found out. Too powerful. He said it damaged her memory permanently." > * We are told that Neville is forgetful, a bit of a bungler. Not only that, but the text emphasizes this aspect of Neville's character constantly. In PS/SS, Neville's first introduction to the reader comes when Harry overhears him telling his grandmother that he has lost his toad (again). In CoS, his introduction to the reader (not counting his brief one-line appearance in the dormitories, in which he is merely one of the "other second-years") is: "Neville was a round-faced and accident-prone boy with the worst memory of anyone Harry had ever met." In PoA, Neville's introduction is: "...he also ran into the real Neville Longbottom, a round-faced, forgetful boy, outside of Flourish and Botts. Harry didn't stop to chat. Neville appeared to have mislaid his booklist and was being told off by his very formidable-looking grandmother." And in GoF it is: "Several of their friends looked in on them as the afternoon progressed, including Seamus Finnigan, Dean Thomas, and Neville Longbottom, a round-faced, extremely forgetful boy who had been brought up by his formidable witch of a grandmother." That Neville is both forgetful and a bit of a bungler (and that he was raised by his grandmother) is not just something that the authorial voice has told us. It is something that the authorial voice has chosen to emphasize quite strongly. In fact, Neville's forgetfulness and his bungling (along with his round face and his unusual upbringing) constitute his primary descriptors. But Kelly left out what for me were the two really big suggestions of the memory charm possibility in GoF, namely the conjunction of the following factors: * The behavior of Mr. Roberts, after receiving a memory charm: "Mr. Roberts had a strange dazed look about him, and he waved them off with a vague 'Merry Christmas.' * The behavior of Neville in the corridor after DADA class: "'Oh yes, I'm fine,' Neville gabbled in the same unnaturally high voice. 'Very interesting dinner -- I mean lesson -- what's for eating?'" * Arthur Weasley's explanation for Mr. Roberts' befuddled behavior: "'Sometimes, when a person's memory's modified, it makes him a bit disoriented for a while...and that was a big thing they had to make him forget.'" * Chapter 30's provision of a "big thing" that is in fact *much* bigger than poor Mr. Roberts' "big thing," and which someone might indeed hae wished to make Neville forget, if in fact he had been a witness to it. The combination of these factors -- particularly the parallel between Mr. Roberts' confusion over the date and Neville's aphasia -- certainly did inspire me, as a reader, to think about the possibility of a memory-charmed Neville. But could they be coincidental? Could it not just be that as a writer, JKR has a fairly standard way of depicting characters in a state of confusion or mental distress? I do think that this *could* be the case. For one thing, the parallels between Neville's muddled dialogue and Mr. Roberts' are not nearly as neat as they could have been. Had Mr. Roberts engaged in the same sort of word/concept substitution that Neville does, for example, or had Neville babbled confusingly about the time or the date, rather than getting his lessons and dinners muddled, then I would feel far more certain that it was the author's intent for the reader to conflate the two events. As things stand, though, I don't personally feel that it's nearly so clear-cut a case of "obvious" authorial intent as others here have proposed. Kelly: > What is NOT obvious to me is whether Neville & Bertha together are a > clue or a red herring. No. That isn't obvious to me, either. JKR has always enjoyed the red herring game, and she's used plot device foreshadowing to this end before (all those who wondered if Lupin could be a Polyjuiced Sirius Black when they first read PoA, raise your hands!). By the time that she was writing GoF, she had to have been aware that speculation about future plot developments in her books had become a very popular hobby among her readers. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that it could be misdirection. I do, however, find it highly suggestive that to date every single one of the novels has drawn the reader's attention to the use and/or abuse of memory charms. We are introduced to the concept in the first book. The second volume gives us Lockhart and his nefarious use of Obliviate; it also shows us a clear example of just how badly such charms *can* confuse someone's mind, should they go awry. The third book includes explicit discussion of the use of memory charms both in regard to the Aunt-Inflating Incident which starts up the plot *and* in regard to the decade-old Sirius Black Incident. And of course, GoF is just packed to bursting with information about memory charms: their uses, their side-effects, their drawbacks, their abuses. I think Neville's got one, myself. But even if he turns out not to, I'm still betting that memory charms are going to become relevant to the main plot of the series in some way or another before we're done, just as the Polyjuice Potion returned to play a starring role in Gof, after putting in its (implied) appearance as a red herring in PoA. ----- So why *would* Neville have been given a memory charm, anyway? Elirtai mused: > The reasons why he got the charm aren't that clear to me - the most > obvious reason would be to help him get over the trauma of the DE > attack on his parents. . . . . If you want to spare a small child > some of the suffering, but don't really want him to *forget*, > wouldn't you use a less definitive method? Such as we do in 'real' > life without magic? Well, some might. But then, as we don't have the option of using memory charms to try to erase traumatic memories, it's a bit difficult to say for sure whether we would try to use them for that purpose or not. Remember what Hagrid says in PS/SS, when he's explaining to Harry the reasons for wizards preferring to keep their existence hidden from the Muggle world? Easy answers to difficult situations are always tempting, even when they yield unfortunate results. Didn't the end of GoF emphasize that notion? And wizards do seem to be, on the whole, a terribly delicate breed, don't you think? They go mad in Azkaban. They allow themselves to get corrupted by evil at the drop of a hat. They're proud and fierce and emotionally volatile and neurotic; they hold onto grudges for damn near forever. And while it's unclear precisely what's wrong with the Longbottoms -- are they actually catatonic, or utterly delusional, or merely possessed of some very strange form of selective amnesia? -- whatever afflicts them is hardly what we would consider a normal adult response to even the most extended and brutal forms of mistreatment. If you ask me, wizards just aren't very emotionally stable. Harry's oft-touted resilience would seem to be yet more way in which he truly is extraordinary within the wizarding world. But for people with such a disturbing propensity to mental illness, they don't seem to have done very much to advance the cause of mental health, have they? You would think that they'd have put some work into that, these past few centuries. The Longbottoms are still "completely insane" after *how* many years of hospitalization? And what about Lockhart? We haven't seen anything of *him* since his unfortunate accident. Given all of that, it wouldn't really surprise me all that much if the immediate wizarding response to a distressed toddler who might have been witness to his parents' torture had been: "Oh, no! He'll be raving mad for sure! And then we'll *never* be able to fix him! He might even decide to Turn To The Dark Side! So quick -- give that kid a memory charm, before it's too late!" Anna wrote: > It seems kind of silly to me to modify the memory of an infant, but > if Harry has the occasional nightmare about his parents, Neville > could too. At the risk of starting up the whole timeline debate again, I would point out that Neville could have been well out of infancy by the time of the incident. We don't know for sure precisely when it occurred, only that the order of events goes something like this: (a) fall of Voldemort (b) arrest of many DEs, some acquitted, some not (by the time of Karkaroff's testimony, there is talk of rounding up "the last of" the DEs) (c) Karkaroff's testimony (d) Rookwood's arrest (e) Bagman's trial (f) Longbottom Incident Now, I personally think that all of that would have taken more than a couple of months. But others (Cindy, for example) have disagreed with me, and the God-like Lexicon itself proposes a late 1981 date for Crouch Jr's trial. So clearly, I'm in the minority here. Even so, though, if we assume a fairly early date for the incident, Neville still could have been two years old. If we assume a later date, he could have been as old as three. Either way leaves him plenty old enough to have been aware of what was happening, and to remember it quite clearly, should nothing intervene to prevent him from doing so. But what if the memory charm weren't placed on Neville purely for his *psychological* benefit? Anna suggested that it might have been some kind of wizarding witness protection scheme: > In Neville's case, it might be a form of protection - if he doesn't > know anything, he's less likely to be tracked by the remaining > Death Eaters. This is a particularly interesting suggestion, to my mind, because it raises once more the issue of the Ministry's unspoken (but increasingly apparent) acknowledgement that many of those who walked free in the early '80s are indeed unrepentent Death Eaters. It also leads into the suggestion that a memory charm might have been put on Neville not to protect him at all, but rather to prevent him from revealing something that somebody desperately wanted to keep under wraps. Elirtai wrote: > Any other ideas? Did something else happen, which he absolutely > *had* to forget? Did some DE put the charm on him so he wouldn't > remember *something*? They wouldn't have felt compelled to be > overly careful about it. If he ever gets his memory back - will we > learn something important? In response to which, Finwitch suggested: > Something... Like that Bartolomeus Crouch Junior did NOT take part > in torturing his parents, but that Lucius Malfoy did! (or other > liberated DEs Harry named... Mmmmmm. So tell me something here. Am I the only person so deeply and profoundly mistrustful of the Ministry that my immediate thought upon reading Finwitch's above suggestion was that if a memory charm had indeed been placed on Neville to suppress this particular piece of knowledge, then the culprit probably wasn't a _Death Eater_ at all? Just wondering. ----- What does it take to break through a memory charm? Finwitch wrote: > We have been told that a memory charm *can* be reversed by a > powerful wizard. Well. Um. Voldemort claimed breaking Bertha Jorkins' memory charm as proof of his status as a "powerful wizard," true. But then, Voldemort is also a megalomaniacal sadist. Me, I kinda got the impression that anyone with a pair of blunt-nosed pliers and a sufficiently vicious imagination could probably have achieved the exact same effect. I mean, didn't they just torture the poor woman until the charm snapped? Maybe I'm just unusually morbid, but that was certainly my interpretation of how all played out. Even if we assume that powerful magic *other* than that used to cause pain was involved, though, I still received the distinct impression that pain was key. And I really don't think that we want to wish such a fate on poor Neville, do we? Admittedly JKR *does* like to play her little games with that "History Repeats Itself Through The Generations" thing she's got running, but I think that even she would draw the line at that! This does raise the question, though, of whether or not simple anxiety would suffice. For that matter, what role might personal will play in the erosion of a memory charm? What role might constant reminders of the suppressed memory play? If we assume that Neville does indeed have a memory charm, then what do we make of his behavior in the corridor after Crouch/Moody's DADA class in GoF? Could his evident distress there be a sign of memory charm erosion, brought on by the in-class demonstration of the Cruciatus? Is a memory charm a kind of perpetual spell, which lurks in a dormant state in the recipient's mind, only to kick into action to exert some form of magical suppression whenever the recipient makes some attempt to think about the forbidden topic? Is the reason that Neville appears so confused (and in much the same way as Mr. Roberts) in that scene because he had in fact just been *trying* to access his suppressed memory, and was thus even more directly under the charm's detrimental influence than he usually is? And if so, then does this also account for his general tendency to perform poorly when under stress? This is certainly food for thought. It also leads us to the question of just what that proposed memory charm might be *doing* to the poor kid, anyway. On this subject, Elirtai wrote: > Some other thoughts: Neville's innate magic ability took quite long > to surface, and it only appeared under danger of death. Could a > bungled memory charm have affected his ability to react with > spontaneous magic to adverse situations? Erm. I guess this all depends on precisely *what* effects you're imagining the memory charm to have on Neville's ability to react with spontaneous magic to adverse situations. I have to say that, his late-blooming aside, I don't see much evidence at all that Neville has any problem manifesting spontaneous magic when under adverse situations. In fact, I see his problem as lying in just the opposite direction. It seems to me that throughout the books, Neville has been shown to respond to stress with unusually *strong* -- if also wild, unharnessed, and uncontrolled -- manifestations of magical power, and that it is really this tendency, rather than any true magical weakness, that accounts for most of his difficulties. Just look at what happened during his first flying lesson in Ps/SS. The poor kid is terrified of flying, and so what happens? Does his broom refuse to take off at all? No. At first he can't get it to come to his hand, true, but when he finally does, then he loses control of it completely: it sends him soaring straight up into the air, seemingly utterly on its own accord, until he finally falls off. Harry's interpretation of the event at the time is that Neville must have been so nervous that he "kicked off" too early, but I don't believe for a moment that that's what really happened -- unless one is willing to accept a rather broad definition of "kicking off." I tend to read that scene as just another example of Neville's magic getting away from him again. (Very much like Trevor the toad, in fact. I often view Trevor as a kind of symbolic representative of Neville's magical talent itself, perhaps even as something akin to a familiar. Trevor is similarly always "getting away" from Neville, wandering outside of the reach of his conscious influence, leaving the sphere of his personal control. In fact, our very first glimpse of Neville is one of him complaining of this very problem -- and to his grandmother, no less.) Neville sometimes gives the impression of being simply incapable of performing magically. Far more often, though, his blunders in canon are portrayed as powerful but unfocussed, rather than as weak and ineffective. In GoF, for example, his difficulties with the banishing charm are described as: "Neville's aim was so poor that he kept accidentally sending much heavier things flying across the room - - Professor Flitwick, for instance." In Transfiguration lessons, he sometimes simply fails to perform, but he also does things like "accidentally" transplanting his own ears onto a cactus. And his Potions blunders tend towards the spectacular as well: is melting right through the bottom of a metal cauldron really an *expected* result of failing to follow a potions recipe properly? But how *about* that Potions Class, eh? Kitty suggested that Snape might be deliberately trying to break through Neville's memory charm by antagonizing and frightening him in Potions Class. Porphyria wrote: > Uncle Algie literally endangers the child's life (multiple times) > in order to smoke out his magical ability, which is one among > several indications that adrenaline directly affects wizarding > skills. And when Voldemort needed to break Bertha Jorkin's Memory > Charm, he did it by repeatedly torturing her. So I've wondered many > times whether Snape imagines that if he can either terrify or > infuriate Neville enough that it'll break the charm. Oh? And here I was, thinking that Snape's habit of terrifying and infuriating Neville in Potions Class was part and parcel of his very cunning strategy for entrapping Harry and Hermione! ;-D But seriously, as I've been reading it, Neville's adrenaline surges in Potions Class most certainly *do* cause him to exhibit strong surges of magical power. Surely that's why he melts so many of those cauldron bottoms! I've always read that particular manifestation of Neville's potions ineptitude as indicative of an uncontrolled and wild release of magical force. He's also incompetent in the more standard ways, of course -- he gets his measurements wrong, and so forth -- but I've always assumed that the cauldron-melting incidents are meant to represent surges of strong unfocussed magic, rather than an inability to follow instructions properly, or to remember ingredients, or anything of that sort. But I don't tend to view this as evidence of a *weakening* memory charm. If anything, I think that it's evidence of an activated memory charm. I don't really think that what the memory charm is doing to Neville is blocking his magical power at all. I think that it is interfering with his ability to focus and to concentrate, and that it is this inability, rather than any real inability to access his magical power, that usually accounts for his blunderings. For one thing, Neville *is* capable of normal magical competence when he's not under stress. In fact, he performs at his best when he is not frightened. His marks are always highest in herbology, a class in which he seems to feel relaxed and comfortable, and which is taught by the gentle Professor Sprout. And Lupin coaxes good performance out of him during that boggart demonstration by reassuring him, rather than by intimidating him. Of course, that doesn't mean that Snape couldn't be trying to blast away Neville's memory charm. It seems perfectly likely to me that the way to break through a charm of that sort might be to "overload" it -- which would explain why stress could both cause it to activate *and* (if enough stress were applied) to break it altogether. What it does mean to my mind, though, is the the speculation, often proposed by memory charm fans, that the result of Neville being released from the charm will be a sudden surge in magical power doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. Because as I see it, a *lack* of power isn't the kid's problem at all. Even if he does want very badly for everyone to believe that it is. No. I'm not joking. I really do think that Neville can be very sneaky when it comes to this subject. He certainly does try to *encourage* people to view him as magically-weak, doesn't he? He tells that story of his late magical blooming to everyone at the table during his very first dinner at Hogwarts, he expresses his concern that Salazar Slytherin's monster might be coming after him next, because of his "near-Squib" status... Except that he doesn't. Not really. If you look at what he actually *says* there in CoS, I think that it's quite suggestive. Neville never once says that he is "almost a Squib." What he actually *says* is: "everyone knows I'm almost a Squib" -- which isn't at all the same thing. Certainly the student body as a whole seems to have accepted as Common Wisdom the notion that Neville lacks magical talent. But really, who was it who gave them that idea in the first place? Yeah. Well, I'm not falling for it. And neither is Snape. Chapter Eleven, _CoS_: "'A bad idea, Professor Lockhart,' said Snape, gliding over like a large and malevolent bat. 'Longbottom causes devestation with the simplest spells. We'll be sending what's left of Finch-Fletchley up to the hospital wing in a matchbox.'" As is usual with Snape, the snide tone somewhat masks the real message (as well as the genuine concern for the safety of the students under his care). Snape's concern here is not that Neville is magically *weak* at all. It is that Neville is magically *strong,* but that he lacks control, is particularly prone to losing control when under stress, and is therefore more than likely to really hurt his opponent if forced to duel while under the pressure of being put on the spot in front of a large group of spectators. And Snape was quite right to be concerned, IMO. When Neville is frightened, he far more often displays a kind of wild magical over- exuberance than he does any form of real magical block. To tell you the truth, I don't think that that memory charm has anything to *do* with any magical block. If Neville's got a magical block at all, which I rather doubt, then IMO it's competely psychological. It does make you wonder, though: what is it about Snape in particular that frightens Neville so badly? I mean, here we have Neville Longbottom, the only son of what seems to be a very old and proud and pure-blooded family. There's an ugly tragedy in his past: his parents were victimized by Dark Wizards during the last great wizarding war, in which his father was an active agent. His father was an Auror. His grandmother feels that he should be doing more to uphold the family name. He has some problems with controlling his magic -- it tends to "get away from him," particularly when he's under a lot of stress, often with excessive results. He has some problems with attention and focus, and he has a terrible memory -- possibly due to a memory charm. He doesn't seem terribly combatative overall: in fact, he seems to possess an instinctive aversion to most forms of conflict. When he is talked into engaging in conflict by his friends, whose good opinion is important to him, he plays to lose: he doesn't try to engage weedy little Draco Malfoy in fisticuffs, but instead attacks both Goyle and Crabbe at once; when he confronts his friends in the Gryffindor common room, he all but *dares* them to attack him -- and he makes sure not to fail to remind them while he does so that he is merely acting on their previous instructions. He very rarely expresses anger. He seems to have little in the way of Proper Wizarding Pride. He isn't really anything like a Squib -- but he encourages everyone to believe that he is. He isn't really anything like a coward either -- but he encourages everyone to think that he is. As a child, he refused to demonstrate any form of magical ability to his family until doing so was absolutely necessary to save his life. And boy, that Sorting Hat sure took a long time with him, didn't it? So just what is it about Professor Snape -- ex-DE Snape, Snape who is proud and vengeful and combatative, and who is obsessed with duty and honor, Snape who looks like the very archetype of a Powerful Sorceror, Snape who is the Head of House Slytherin, Snape who appears in boggart form looking as if he may well be reaching for his wand (even though he teaches a wandless subject), Snape in whose class Neville keeps melting down his cauldrons, Snape who is *onto* Neville and obviously doesn't believe this "I'm just nearly a Squib" act for a second... What does this man represent to Neville Longbottom? Just what *is* it about Snape that scares Neville so very much? Oh, I've no idea. > Maybe the image of Snape in Gran's clothing symbolizes more that we > first suspected... Oooooooh, yes. I'm firmly of the belief that it does. ----- But all of this speculation does lead us to what to my mind is the most interesting question about the memory charm theory: if JKR has indeed been setting up a Neville-With-Memory-Charm plotline, then what is its *purpose*? What narrative function is it likely to perform for the series as a whole? Elirtai: > If he ever gets his memory back - will we learn something important? Well, from an authorial point of view, there would seem to me to be little point in setting up such a plotline in the first place if one did not plan on eventually *restoring* the suppressed memory. Furthermore, it would seem to me to be a terrible waste of a plot engine if such a recovered memory did not then reveal something of vital importance to the plot. So what could that thing be? The revelation that one or more of the Pensieve defendents had in fact been innocent -- along with a corresponding revelation about the identity of the real culprit(s) -- is one possibility. (Fourth Man With Innocence, anyone? ) Information about corruption within the Ministry also seems possible. But neither of these really satisfy me somehow. So does anyone else have some other possibility they would like to suggest? More to the point, though, what do people imagine the *thematic* function of a Memory Charmed Neville plotline to be? I have my own reasons for considering it a fascinating possibility, but although I've already hinted quite strongly at them, I'm now finding myself feeling reluctant to go into any greater detail along those lines, as I do recognize that my own favored reading of Neville is not only highly idiosyncratic, and not only unusual, and not only subversive, but also actively *hostile* to what I believe to be the author's true intent. I therefore would like to open up this field of inquiry to others who do not share my hostility to the authorial perspective when it comes to Neville and his thematic relevance to the story as a whole. Tell me, memory charm fans: what do *you* see as the narrative function of this plotline? What do you imagine its thematic purpose to be? What do you perceive as the thematic relevance of issues of memory, remembrance, and the past to the story as a whole? -- Elkins From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Mar 21 00:32:41 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 00:32:41 -0000 Subject: Who's Afraid Of The Big, Bad Wolf? (WAS Odd parallels and FEATHERBOAS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36773 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > > This also fits in with hints given earlier in the book that Snape > >is > > still afraid of Lupin. > > I hadn't considered the possibility that Snape is afraid of Lupin. I > kind of reached the opposite conclusion: that Snape doesn't fear > Lupin, Black, Dumbledore or anyone in the wizarding world > except . . . Moody. > > ::smiles at the idea that she now has an additional reason to like > Moody:: > > There is a canon clue, after all, that Snape does not fear Lupin: > > "Lupin!" Snape called into the fire. "I want a word!" > > Yup, Snape doesn't hesitate for one minute about summoning Lupin to > his office. Snape also feels quite comfortable glaring at Lupin and > acting up (ridiculing Neville) in Snape's presence. He also thinks > nothing of criticizing Lupin to Dumbledore in the presence of Percy, > and he does it again when he substitutes for Lupin and criticizes him > in front of the DADA class. > > Snape probably wouldn't do those things to someone he feared or even > respected. I mean, I can't imagine Snape summoning Moody like that > unless Snape was on fire. > > That Moody . . . Moody chills Snape right to the bone, doesn't he? > Snape doesn't dare display open hostility toward Moody like he does > toward the other DADA teachers. > > And in GoF, Snape changes abruptly on the staircase when Moody shows > up. Snape is ordering Filch around and snapping at Filch. But when > Moody arrives, "Snape stops talking abruptly." A vein "flickered > horribly on Snape's greasy temple." The normally-articulate Snape > starts speaking in incomplete sentences. Snape uses a soft voice, > a "voice of forced calm" and speaks through clenched teeth. Then > Snape retreats, saying "I think I will go back to bed." > > The comparison between Snape's conduct with Moody versus Lupin > suggests that Snape isn't the least bit afraid of Lupin, I'd say. But - it wasn't *real* Moody. It was a DE called Bartholomeus Crouch. Snape's DE mark revealed that or did it? Maybe Snape thought Moody had some *other* method to activate it? (Would make catching DEs easier, wouldn't it, making them think you're one of them). Moody indeed.. Hm - Did Snape tell Dumbledore about "Moody" in his office? Did McGonagall tell Dumbledore about "Moody" transfiguring Draco Malfoy? (Would the *real* Moody have *kicked* the boy?) From nancyr at esatclear.ie Thu Mar 21 07:13:03 2002 From: nancyr at esatclear.ie (RYANS) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 23:13:03 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid, Keeper of the Keys References: Message-ID: <00f501c1d0a7$d8437560$7da1a5c2@nancyr> No: HPFGUIDX 36774 I have always liked Hagrid too! There is just one thing that has bothered me about him- he doesn't seem brave enough to be a Gryffindor! He is brave enough around his 'beasts' but then again, he's bigger than most of them are! How did he get in then? I'd appreciate any comments! Lazyscientist. >>Did I mention already that he is my favorite character? :-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From spottydog at worldnet.att.net Thu Mar 21 01:46:30 2002 From: spottydog at worldnet.att.net (CARRIE MUNGAI) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:46:30 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid, Keeper of the Keys References: <00f501c1d0a7$d8437560$7da1a5c2@nancyr> Message-ID: <000101c1d07a$7238d800$13a2520c@s0023817978> No: HPFGUIDX 36775 I believe that Hagrid was in Gryffindor because he seems to have a good moral compass. IMO he has shown bravery, left without parents at age 12, willing to take on any task for Dumbledore. Spottydog ----- Original Message ----- From: RYANS To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:13 PM Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid, Keeper of the Keys I have always liked Hagrid too! There is just one thing that has bothered me about him- he doesn't seem brave enough to be a Gryffindor! He is brave enough around his 'beasts' but then again, he's bigger than most of them are! How did he get in then? I'd appreciate any comments! Lazyscientist. >>Did I mention already that he is my favorite character? :-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 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. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From saintbacchus at yahoo.com Thu Mar 21 02:24:12 2002 From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 02:24:12 -0000 Subject: Dobby & his family, Snape & Gryffindor, Good & Evil Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36776 Uncmark asks: << But wasn't Dobby an agent of Lucius Malfoy, who was a known Death Eater? >> No, Dobby had to punish himself for going without permission. On a side note, I think Dobby is being completely honest when he says Harry is a beacon of hope; there's really nothing in the books to suggest that Dobby knew Harry before he met him that first time. In fact, house elves don't seem to be good liars, so unless Dobby is exceptional in that regard, too, I can't buy the previous owner theory. Finwitch writes: << He got it all wrong. Snarling insults at students never helps them to learn. Besides, he's illogical on how a Gryffindor is supposed to be. He yells at them when they don't help Neville *and* when they do help him. Giving penalty to Hermione for giving correct answers? No - he's giving them penalties no matter WHAT they do in his class. >> Well, Snape's attitude doesn't help Neville, but I don't think there's any evidence that the other students are substantially affected. When I was in 11th grade English, I had a really nice teacher. She was very generous with her grades and didn't make us do much work. Great, but when I got to 12th grade English, I had a wise-ass teacher who wrote snide comments all over my papers. For me at least, the drive to get a paper back with no comments on it improved my essays by years. Likewise, Snape's constant punishment of Gryffindor students seems to strengthen their resolve. Harry never walks away from a Snape-related injustice wondering if maybe he's just a bad kid; he's more sure than ever of his moral center. Which brings me to the main event! Chyna Rose wonders randomly: << Is there a true, clear line between Good and Evil? Does a means considered 'Evil' (use of 'dark' magic and artifacts) automatically become good just because the 'Good' side uses it? And who's to say that they are on the side of 'Good' in the first place? After all, I'm sure that V's convinced 100% Right. >> Interesting question. Voldemort's philosophy is kind of difficult to pin down, because it both conforms to the model of ideological tyranny (genetic purity, in this case) and, um, doesn't. Voldemort tells Harry that there is no good or evil, only power, but Harry rejects this idea, and I think we're supposed to as well. It seems to me that one of the defining characteristics of the "Good" characters is that they have a strong moral compass. Or at least, they have a moral compass. They believe there is a line between Good and Evil. Lucius Malfoy, Peter Pettigrew, and Voldemort, OTOH, all seem unconcerned with such concepts; their beliefs and allegiences shift depending on what serves them best. It's been theorized that Lucius wouldn't have minded Draco and Harry becoming friends because their friendship is potentially useful to him - nevermind that this is the boy who defeated Lucius' lord and master. Contrast Harry, who refuses Draco's friendship - a very powerful alliance - on principal. None of the "Good" characters are perfect, but they're all able to feel shame when they've done something wrong and get back on track. Lucius, Pettigrew, and Voldemort don't seem to recognize the concept of "wrong," and that's why they're able to commit such atrocities. Now compare that to Voldemort-Era Bartemius Crouch, Sr. He's so sure that he's in the right that he forgets what's wrong. And that leads to such intemperate decisions as giving Aurors free license to kill and prosecuting his own son without a second thought. Crouch's philosophy is that if you are right, nothing is wrong. But as with Voldemort, I think we're led to believe that this way of thinking is, well, wrong. You can even apply this theory to the Dursleys, who at least ostensibly thought they were doing Harry a favor by beating the magic out of him, and surely think they're doing right by Dudley by spoiling him rotten. Again, they're so caught up in what's "right" that they can't see the wrong. This is where the series achieves its greatest depth, IMO. So far, I don't think we've seen a villain who so much chooses to do evil as chooses not to recognize it. It's not very comforting, but it is very human. --Anna PS: I suddenly feel "very" pretentious, but I had to come up with a closer. Training from 12th grade English. ^_~ From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Mar 21 02:40:19 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 02:40:19 -0000 Subject: He's Not There (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36777 Argus Filch in his first solo filk! He's Not There (To the tune of She's Not There) Dedicated to Eileen THE SCENE: Filch's office. Enter FILCH FILCH Albus told me about Peeves, and all his pranks But who could ever have believed he'd make me a crank. But if you've time, please hear my story How his cackles have made me swear Peeves, when I have to try to find him He's not there Ooh, nobody told me that rude words were all he knew No one told me the Baron's all he listens to But now he's emptied out a chalk bin And ev'ry child he tries to scare But there's no purpose served in talkin' He's not there. Well, let me tell you he's a Poltergeist The way he floatin', the colors that he wears His voice is loud and cruel He wants to get your conk so please beware And it's so hard to trap this quarry He'll poke your nose or pull your hair The Friar grants him yet more chances He don't care! Well, let me tell you he's a poltergeist The way he floatin', the colors that he wears His voice is loud and cruel He's gonna get your conk so please beware! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From editor at texas.net Thu Mar 21 03:18:30 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 21:18:30 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who's Afraid Of The Big, Bad Wolf? (WAS Odd parallels and FEATHERBOAS) References: Message-ID: <004b01c1d087$14559540$e97663d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36778 Finwitch said, implying that Snape knew fake-Moody's real identity during the hall confrontation: > But - it wasn't *real* Moody. It was a DE called Bartholomeus Crouch. > Snape's DE mark revealed that or did it? Where did you get that? The Dark Mark was a means for DEs to recognize each other, but we are not told *how.* The Marks gradually grow more recognizable as Voldemort gains strength--but at this point in the story would it even be visible yet? I'm betting there's some surreptitious, innocuous "trigger" to making it tingle or burn or something in order to recognize a Fellow; otherwise rounding up the DEs would have been childishly easy and there would not be such mystery as to who was and was not. And there is no reason for (a) Snape to try this at a person he has no reason to suspect is *not* Moody, or for (b) Barty Jr. to try this at a person he considers a traitor, and thus blow his cover. I think this was a genuine emotional reaction by Snape to someone he really believes is Moody. --Amanda From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Mar 21 03:24:06 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:24:06 -0000 Subject: Real Wizards Don't Apologize In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36779 Cindy wrote: > Wizards just don't *get* the concept of apologies, do they? No. They don't. 'Way back when Real Wizards Weren't Squeamish, I suggested that the Potterverse's wizarding culture was at heart a warrior culture, and I still stand by that. (That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.) Warrior cultures tend not to put much stock in apologies. I mean, how many times do you run across characters apologizing to each other in Norse Eddas? Or, for that matter, in any sort of warrior saga? Just think of how differently the Iliad would have played out, if any of the principles had been able to apologize, or for that matter to accept an apology gracefully once one was offered! Cultures that develop with a strong warrior ethos don't really do that whole apology thing. Aristocratic Romans who came the conclusion that they'd seriously done wrong weren't supposed to go around apologizing to everyone. What they were *supposed* to do was to commit suicide like...well, you know. Like Good Romans. Now admittedly, we haven't run across a whole lot of noble suicides in the HP books. But I have to say that if we did, it wouldn't strike me as at *all* out of character for the wizarding culture as it's been presented so far. > Now Hermione, she knows how to apologize. Yes, she does. Like any self-respecting adolescent, she can be stubborn about it, but she does at least seem to have some familiarity with the entire concept. But then, Hermione was raised by muggles, right? I mean, *properly* raised by muggles, not just locked into the cupboard beneath the stairs, like Harry was. So it's not really surprising if she's a little weak on that whole Real Wizards Don't Apologize concept. But don't worry: Hermione's a very quick learner. She'll pick up on how to be a properly pride-driven and bloody-minded idiot like all of the rest of them in no time at all, I'm sure. Seriously, though, David made mention of the apparent inability of these characters to apologize as evidence that they are personally "damaged." I'd agree with that, but I'd also take it one step further: I think that their entire culture is fairly well damaged, and that their discomfort with the notion of apologies is really one of the very *mildest* manifestations of said damage within the series. Cindy later qualified her rant, by adding: > That said, I have to kick myself, because I overlooked perhaps the > biggest, most important apology in the books. In my favorite scene > in my favorite book, no less: > "Forgive me, Remus," said Black. > "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?" Ah, yes. That certainly *was* a sincere and heart-felt plea for forgiveness, wasn't it? No attempts to excuse himself, no attempts to explain himself, no attempts to justify himself -- not even a "Peter turned me against you!" accusation stuck in there somewhere as a partial defense. Just a pure and simple request for forgiveness. That's hard. That's about as sucking-it-up as apologies get, really. And coming from someone like Sirius Black, it really means a lot, don't you think? Even after all those years in Azkaban, the man still has a good deal of that Proper Wizarding Pride. He's not really at all the "forgive me" type. But just look at how Lupin *reacts* to it, will you? Look at his tone. It's breezy. Light. Casual. Childhood nicknames, "not at all, old friend." I mean, it's *flippant,* really. It very nearly borders on the facetious. That's how Lupin always signals discomfort or distress. It's similar to that breezy tone he takes when he talks to Harry about the dementors, and about Sirius Black, and about the Dementor's Kiss. It's similar to the tone he takes nearly every time he is forced to deal with Snape as a colleague. For that matter, it's a relation to the tone that he's been taking with Peter throughout the Shrieking Shack scene. Sirius' apology may strike us as admirable or touching, but its effect on Lupin seems to me to be one of extreme discomfort. It *embarrasses* him. Cindy wrote: > A lot of people have expressed dissatisfaction with this scene, and > perhaps one reason is that neither character has any good reason to > be apologizing. I don't know. I don't really think that's it at all. For one thing, I think it is perfectly reasonable to apologize to a close friend for having wrongly suspected him of treachery and murder. That represents such a profound failure of trust that to my mind, it *certainly* warrants some form of apology. And it particularly warrants an apology from Sirius, because while Lupin would seem only to have come to believe Sirius to be a murderous traitor after his arrest, Sirius suspected Lupin on the basis of no solid evidence at all. It's hard to avoid the suspicion that Lupin's lycanthropy had something to do with that, and even if it hadn't, I'm sure that Lupin thinks that it had. I'm equally sure that Sirius is aware that Lupin would assume that it had. And really, that's pretty ugly. Given all of that, it seems perfectly proper to me for Sirius to ask for forgiveness. No, I think that the reason that so many readers express feelings of dissatisfaction with that part of the scene is that the tenor of Lupin's response strikes an off-note. The tone is just all wrong. It sounds insincere, unconvincing. It sounds a bit like a brush- off. And that leaves them feeling a certain degree of anxiety that perhaps things aren't really settled between the two men, that perhaps there are still some hard feelings there that aren't being resolved. Eloise wrote: > The point about sincere apology is that it isn't just some magic > social formula, it's the recognition that something has gone wrong > between two (or more) people that needs to be put right if the > relationship is to carry on or be healed. It's an acknowledgement > of how the situation is and that something needs to be done about > it. Yes. And I think that this is really the underlying cause of that reader anxiety with the "apology." Remus' response leaves many people with an uneasy feeling that he's in some way resisting the offer to heal the breach. I don't think that he is, myself. I think that he's just profoundly uncomfortable. As Eloise said, it's often much harder to respond to a sincere apology than it is to offer one, and what Sirius is asking forgiveness for there really is big. "You thought that I'd sold myself to Dark Forces and was planning on betraying you and James and Lily *and* their infant son to death? You just happened to figure that the one werewolf in the group was also probably the traitor? Oh, well, really now, Sirius, please don't trouble yourself about that any longer, all right? I mean, it could have happened to anyone." No. Even if Lupin isn't holding onto any hard feelings at all, it's still got to be difficult for him to think of a way to respond, and so he tries to gloss over his discomfort by offering up a light and breezy apology right back. I also don't think that he's at all comfortable with Sirius breaking the Real Wizards Don't Apologize rule -- it's not really *manly,* you know, to ask quite so earnestly for another's forgiveness; it's not...well, it's just not *done.* He's uncomfortable, and he's embarrassed, and so he descends into flippancy. That's how I read it, anyway. I thought it rather sad, myself. Eloise wrote: > 'Real Wizards don't Apologise'. Real Wizards suffer from a great > deal too much pride, if you ask me. And they're not helped by being > male. . . . But there are ways and ways of showing regret, of > moving on. Isn't that what Harry and Ron did in that 'apology that > wasn't an apology' scene that restored their > friendship? . . . .They both knew the other was sorry for their > part in the rift between them and in the end, *because they both > recognised the situation*, it didn't have to be said. The big reconciliation moment of Shrieking Shack isn't that rather awkward apology at *all,* IMO. It's the embrace. -- Elkins, whose own dicentra spectabilis has just started to shoot up, although now that it is hailing, she rather imagines that it's wishing it had waited a bit longer; and who is very happy with the idea of nice peaty smoky Islay single malts on board the Fourth Man hovercraft, but who thinks it best if Eloise herself sees to its acquisition, as nice peaty single malts are very hard to come by here in Oregon, where we instead produce sweet pale Reislings and effete cordials (twee but tasty!) made from various and sundry regional types of berry-fruit... From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Mar 21 03:57:19 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:57:19 -0000 Subject: Who's Afraid Of The Big, Bad Wolf? (WAS Odd parallels and FEATHERBOAS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36780 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > So, everyone, when one is analyzing whether an author has established > a proper motivation for a character's actions, what are we supposed > to consider? I don't think there's any "supposed" about it. We consider whatever makes sense to us, and whatever we think works for the individual character. Real people aren't motivated solely by objective facts, so realistic fictional characters shouldn't be either. And Snape, for all his intellect, is full of irrational, emotion-driven convictions. > There is a canon clue, after all, that Snape does not fear Lupin: > > "Lupin!" Snape called into the fire. "I want a word!" > > Yup, Snape doesn't hesitate for one minute about summoning Lupin to > his office. Well, Snape is *extremely* pissed off at the time, and I suspect anger trumped fear for him in this instance. As for the other examples you cite, they all take place in public with lots of other people around, or when Lupin is not present, and none of them take place at a time when Lupin is close to transforming. I agree with you, though, that Snape is afraid of Moody -- much more than he's afraid of Lupin, in fact. > Sirius isn't intimidated by Lupin, either. Sirius is lunging at > Peter and heckling Lupin during Lupin's werewolf adventures speech, > so he isn't at all afraid of Lupin. Well, of course Sirius isn't afraid of Lupin! Why would Sirius be afraid of his good buddy Moony? > > The only person who seems to be terrified of Lupin is, uh, Scabbers. > And maybe Crookshanks. :-) And Ron, at least briefly. Remember "Get away from me, werewolf"? Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From uncmark at yahoo.com Thu Mar 21 04:16:30 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 04:16:30 -0000 Subject: Snape & Neville's Memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36781 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "talondg" wrote: > Note that Snape can have Neville's best interests at heart, without > having to be a sentimental old softie down deep. > > "Iron sharpens Iron" or "The best teacher is the Enemy" > > Snape's role is a _professor_. His job is to teach the skills he is responsible for to his students - ALL his students. He is preparing them for life outside the protected walls of Hogwarts. And I think he feels a strong sense of duty to do so. > > His students don't have to _like_ him, as long as they learn! > "I'm gonna teach these goddamn kids how to survive in the real world > even if I have to kill them in the process!" Still, he mistreats Neville and the rest of Griffyndor to strengthen them? What kind of reaction is he hoping to get? Remember yound wizards' magic manifests itself in strange ways. I was rereading PofA and pictured Neville in the place of Harry with Fudge in Ch 3... "BUT I BLEW UP MY PROFESSOR!" "My dear boy, We're not going to punish ypu for a little thing like that! It was an accident. We don't send people to Azkaban just for blowing up ex-DeathEaters!" Uncmark From uncmark at yahoo.com Thu Mar 21 04:21:50 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 04:21:50 -0000 Subject: Snape & Neville's Memory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36782 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "talondg" wrote: > Note that Snape can have Neville's best interests at heart, without > having to be a sentimental old softie down deep. > > "Iron sharpens Iron" or "The best teacher is the Enemy" > > Snape's role is a _professor_. His job is to teach the skills he is responsible for to his students - ALL his students. He is preparing them for life outside the protected walls of Hogwarts. And I think he feels a strong sense of duty to do so. > > His students don't have to _like_ him, as long as they learn! > "I'm gonna teach these goddamn kids how to survive in the real world > even if I have to kill them in the process!" Still, he mistreats Neville and the rest of Griffyndor to strengthen them? What kind of reaction is he hoping to get? Remember yound wizards' magic manifests itself in strange ways. I was rereading PofA and pictured Neville in the place of Harry with Fudge in Ch 3... "BUT I BLEW UP MY PROFESSOR!" "My dear boy, We're not going to punish ypu for a little thing like that! It was an accident. We don't send people to Azkaban just for blowing up ex-DeathEaters!" Uncmark From lipglossusa at yahoo.com Thu Mar 21 04:59:45 2002 From: lipglossusa at yahoo.com (lipglossusa) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 04:59:45 -0000 Subject: Hagrid & Tom Riddle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36783 ladjables wrote: > From their ages we know McGonagall, Hagrid and Tom Riddle were all at > school together (not necessarily the same class though) but could > Trelawney also have been a contemporary? Could she have made her > first real prediction as a teenager, and the Transfiguration teacher > Dumbledore got wind of it? Which was why he observed Tom so closely > and why he later had another Fawkes wand created? Your post got me thinking-- does Hagrid now realize that Tom Riddle is Voldemort? If so, does he harbor even more deeply hateful feelings toward Voldemort that he doesn't speak of? After all, it was due to Tom Riddle that Hagrid was kicked out and never finished his wizarding education. If he doesn't realize who Tom Riddle became, why not? Was this information witheld from him? Dumbledore says not many people know that Voldemort was once known as Tom Riddle. Just a thought. However, I don't necessarily think that Dumbledore would have found a teenage Trelawney a very reliable sorce of information. I imagine she was a thousand times more fake than she is now. If she had made any kind of prediction, I doubt anyone would have paid attention, or believed her. I wonder if Dumbledore gave Ollivanders Fawkes' feather after Harry survived the attack, thinking that Harry would be "attracted" to it when he went to purchase one. I also wonder if Trelawney's prediction isn't directly tied to Harry at all. Dumbledore is the one who "mentions" that the trance Harry sees is Trelawney's second prediction, and if the first somehow predicted Harry's confrontation with Voldemort that killed his parents, it would seem (to me) a bit insensitive of him to hint this to Harry in light conversation. From bonnie at niche-associates.com Thu Mar 21 05:23:13 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 05:23:13 -0000 Subject: Still-Life With Memory Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36784 Elkins concludes a wonderful essay with... More to the point, though, what do people imagine the *thematic* function of a Memory Charmed Neville plotline to be? I have my own reasons for considering it a fascinating possibility, but although I've already hinted quite strongly at them, I'm now finding myself feeling reluctant to go into any greater detail along those lines,as I do recognize that my own favored reading of Neville is not only highly idiosyncratic, and not only unusual, and not onlysubversive, but also actively *hostile* to what I believe to be the author's true intent. I therefore would like to open up this field of inquiry to others who do not share my hostility to the authorial perspective when it comes to Neville and his thematic relevance to the story as a whole. Tell me, memory charm fans: what do *you* see as the narrative function of this plotline? What do you imagine its thematic purpose to be? Whatdo you perceive as the thematic relevance of issues of memory, remembrance, and the past to the story as a whole? Dicentra raises her hand, Neville-like: Well, after that masterful treatment of the Memory Charm theme, I almost hesitate to add anything lest I damage the balance and harmony of the Still Life. Almost, that is. I had to think a bit about this, and now I have an answer of sorts. I was just watching Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, whose primary theme in the first few seasons was What People Did During The Cardassian Occupation. The revelations end up being pretty ugly at times. People who in ordinary circumstances were decent and upright are found to have been collaborators with the enemy, mercenaries, theives, murders, traitors. I have to believe that during Voldemort's reign people did things they weren't proud of, things they wouldn't have done if there hadn't been a war on, things they are desperate to keep hidden. They have done what they could to cover their sins, hoping that by so doing their sins would be forgotten -- that they would cease to exist, in other words. But the filth they swept under the rug has festered during that time, and it's taking on a life of its own. Soon it will erupt in their faces. Some of it already has. Barty Crouch Sr.'s secret came out and it cost him his life. Siri's wrongful imprisonment is an awfully dirty secret that points at others -- surely he was not the only innocent person who was left to rot in Azkaban for the sake of restoring the peace. And the guilty Death Eaters who walked free all these years -- Peter Pettigrew especially -- have restored the original problem. It occurs to me that Neville is emblematic of the whole of the Wizarding World. If the Memory Charm theory is correct, the charm is an attempt to erase the horror he experienced while watching his parents be tortured (symbolizing the whole war), and possibly it's to erase one or more dirty little secrets. Someone might have hoped that if these things are forgotten, maybe they didn't happen. Maybe they'll go away. Maybe then everything will be OK. But Neville isn't OK. He isn't functioning well. The filth swept under his rug keeps surfacing. It keeps interfering with his attempts to be a good wizard. It erupts in his face uncontrollably. And there's every reason to believe his Memory Charm will fracture and all hell will break loose. The thematic importance of Neville's Memory Charm, therefore, is to be a microcosm of the larger theme of memory and secrets in the post- Voldemort years. That "forgetting" or hiding the evil done during that time doesn't make it go away. That the world ISN'T functioning normally. That it will eventually come back to bite you hard in the anatomy. I can picture Neville going postal when he regains his memory. I can see him as an angel of wrath wreaking vengeance on all those who messed with him (or with anyone). And I can see that running parallel to what happens in the Wizarding World when the Truth comes out. Elkins had said earlier: So tell me something here. Am I the only person so deeply and profoundly mistrustful of the Ministry that my immediate thought upon reading Finwitch's above suggestion was that if a memory charm had indeed been placed on Neville to suppress this particular piece of knowledge, then the culprit probably wasn't a _Death Eater_ at all? ::Dicentra displays her FIDEDIGNO badge, which when pressed flashes FISHFINGERS in green, and when pressed again shows FIE in orange, and when pressed again shows FIEONGOODNESS in blue.:: I'm not ready to claim that Fudge tortured the Longbottoms, but I'll always vote for him covering up something evil. --Dicentra, whose dicentras are still asleep under a blanket of snow From kellybroughton at netscape.net Thu Mar 21 05:17:53 2002 From: kellybroughton at netscape.net (kellybroughton at netscape.net) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 00:17:53 -0500 Subject: Is Dobby a good house elf/short? Message-ID: <15F4D924.16C4A975.B13B89B9@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36785 >"It state in COS chapter two--- "The Wizard family >Dobby serves, sir... DObby is a house-elf... bound to >serve one house and one family forever." > >and since later we find out that he's Malfoys elf... I >dont think he could be the Potters old elf." >adrienne > Well.... I wonder. If Dobby truly *is* the Malfoys' house-elf, theirs alone and always will be, WHY then would he make the effort to go to Harry on his own initiative(?) and try to keep Harry from going back to Hogwarts in order to save Harry? In other words, why would Dobby *care* whether Harry goes back or not? Dobby makes it quite clear that the Malfoys don't even know what he's doing, and if they ever find out, they'll put him in a serious hurt.(Refer to Cos, page 14.) I am of the mind that there's something going on to make Dobby go against his nature (being a "good house-elf") that forces him to make such a bold action. Could the reason possibly be that, by going to Harry without the Malfoys' knowledge and/or permission, that Dobby actually IS being a "good house-elf"? Just something to ponder. "I have read GoF and CoS each about three times and nowhere >can I find out how tall they are. In GoF, Winky comes into Moody's >office behind Snape and she is standing behind him and I think she is >up to his knees (?) Which makes me think that Dobby and Winky are >about three feet tall, but does anyone else know. Thanks" > >Betsy If it's true that Winky comes up to Snape's knees, then she must be about a foot and a half or so- three feet tall (a meter or yard) would be about waist height. -kel -- __________________________________________________________________ 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 finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Mar 21 06:29:54 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 06:29:54 -0000 Subject: Still-Life With Memory Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36786 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra_spectabilis_alba" wrote: > It occurs to me that Neville is emblematic of the whole of the > Wizarding World. If the Memory Charm theory is correct, the charm is > an attempt to erase the horror he experienced while watching his > parents be tortured (symbolizing the whole war), and possibly it's to > erase one or more dirty little secrets. > > Someone might have hoped that if these things are forgotten, maybe > they didn't happen. Maybe they'll go away. Maybe then everything > will be OK. But Neville isn't OK. He isn't functioning well. The > filth swept under his rug keeps surfacing. It keeps interfering with > his attempts to be a good wizard. It erupts in his face > uncontrollably. And there's every reason to believe his Memory Charm > will fracture and all hell will break loose. > > The thematic importance of Neville's Memory Charm, therefore, is to > be a microcosm of the larger theme of memory and secrets in the post- > Voldemort years. That "forgetting" or hiding the evil done during > that time doesn't make it go away. That the world ISN'T functioning > normally. That it will eventually come back to bite you hard in the > anatomy. I can picture Neville going postal when he regains his > memory. I can see him as an angel of wrath wreaking vengeance on all > those who messed with him (or with anyone). And I can see that > running parallel to what happens in the Wizarding World when the > Truth comes out. Yes... Neville's mind is a mess! Look at the Ministry... They have Law Enforcement, Improper Use of Magic Office and Abuse of Muggle Artifacts Office, separated. Could be rationalised into one office, right? Just look at the amount of ministries... It's a mess consisting lots of byrocrathy. > Elkins had said earlier: > > So tell me something here. Am I the only person so deeply and > profoundly mistrustful of the Ministry that my immediate thought upon > reading Finwitch's above suggestion was that if a memory charm had > indeed been placed on Neville to suppress this particular piece of > knowledge, then the culprit probably wasn't a _Death Eater_ at all? The little 2-year-old Neville may well have Memory-Charmed himself with that strong magic of his, without even knowing it - to stun the painful memory. He's not ready, not able to deal with the memory of his parents' being tortured. Can't blame him -- Harry *fainted* when that memory was brought to him all at once, but he had remembered the Green Light all his life. Neville didn't *faint* so I suppose he's dealing with his tragedy a bit better. Then again, Neville knew what it was, unlike Harry. > I'm not ready to claim that Fudge tortured the Longbottoms, but I'll > always vote for him covering up something evil. Naturally - hiding facts is his response. Pretty much like Neville's saying he's not much magic... We'll see what comes of our little Neville once he gets his head cleaned up. Did he get that Maple-phoenix? From porphyria at mindspring.com Thu Mar 21 09:48:03 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 01:48:03 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Still-Life With Memory Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36787 > Much Ado About Memory Charms. First off, I'd like to thank Elkins for another fine post, one which both does a lovely job of summarizing the received wisdom on the topic and then goes much further by fishing out the most tantalizing possibilities for plot development in that direction. Having read all the evidence you collect regarding memory charms and Neville, I'd say it is very compelling evidence that he does in fact have one. How a memory charm might interact with his 'magical abilities,' however, is well worth straightening out, and I appreciate the work you've done here because I myself am guilty of having been fuzzy in my posts on this. I agree that Neville is by no means lacking in magical power, and you are correct to point out that if anything his power is excessive and often goes uncontrolled. So if a memory charm was suddenly broken, it's not like he'd get even more powerful. He might get more focused and then be able to control it better. But is that what he wants? You've made a convincing point that Neville is the one responsible for leading everyone to think of him as Squib-like. And I'm wondering what exactly you think is going on with him. Because I figure there are a couple of possibilities. One is that Neville knows perfectly well he's got lots of magical power and is trying to downplay it for some suspicious reason. Were you thinking the Hat was tempted to sort him into Slytherin? It's an intriguing idea. So the question then is why? Even if he does consciously realize that he's very powerful, it would certainly seem that he can't control it even when it's in his best interest to do so. So I'm not completely convinced that he's trying to hide his light under a bushel basket for the sake of some 'sneaky' plan. I think the other possibility is that he can't consciously acknowledge his power because he so desperately doesn't want to. It terrifies him. And all his effort at convincing everyone of his weakness is also an attempt at convincing himself, at reassuring himself that he really is -- what? Not a threat? Not a threat to whom? Now, if we agree that his problem is not being weak and powerless *because of* the memory charm then we almost have two separate issues here, right? One is who put the memory charm on him and why; the other is why can't he come to grips with his very palpable magical power? Still, it's probably safe to assume these are related, seeing as we've come this far already. I like the suggestion that the charm might have been placed on him for reasons other than protecting his tender psyche. > Finwitch suggested: > > > Something... Like that Bartolomeus Crouch Junior did NOT take part > > in torturing his parents, but that Lucius Malfoy did! (or other > > liberated DEs Harry named... And Elkins continued: > Mmmmmm. > > So tell me something here.? Am I the only person so deeply and > profoundly mistrustful of the Ministry that my immediate thought upon > reading Finwitch's above suggestion was that if a memory charm had > indeed been placed on Neville to suppress this particular piece of > knowledge, then the culprit probably wasn't a _Death Eater_ at all? See, this is fun. But I'm not quite sure what would have gone on. In the Pensieve scene, Mrs. Lestrange admits to the guilt of her party, doesn't she? I guess what I'm asking here is, if there were a cover up, if either someone of the four was innocent or someone else was also guilty, what do you think her reaction would be? Would she be too proud to quibble with the court? Or would she try to expose the real culprit? She has very little to lose. I think if someone like Lucius Malfoy were involved, or weirder still someone not even a DE, then we'd have to opt for the full-blown conspiracy theory that Mrs. Lestrange was somehow bought off or otherwise manipulated to cover for the silent partner. Or am I missing a possibility here? As to the real torturer not being not even a DE at all...well lets get to that in a bit. OK, we've theorized that someone might have zapped him with a memory charm for their own evil purposes. So lets consider the sort-of-but-not-quite separate issue of what Neville is so afraid of. Elkins wrote, in part: > It does make you wonder, though: what is it about Snape in particular > that frightens Neville so badly?? I mean, here we have Neville > Longbottom, the only son of what seems to be a very old and proud and > pure-blooded family.? <...> He seems to have > little in the way of Proper Wizarding Pride. <...> > So just what is it about Professor Snape -- ex-DE Snape, Snape who is > proud and vengeful and combatative, and who is obsessed with duty and > honor, Snape who looks like the very archetype of a Powerful > Sorceror, Snape who is the Head of House Slytherin, Snape who appears > in boggart form looking as if he may well be reaching for his wand > (even though he teaches a wandless subject), Snape in whose class > Neville keeps melting down his cauldrons, Snape who is *onto* Neville > and obviously doesn't believe this "I'm just nearly a Squib" > act for a second... > > What does this man represent to Neville Longbottom?? Just what *is* > it about Snape that scares Neville so very much? I hate snipping so much, because I honestly feel like I'm missing the implication of these suggestions. I feel Very Stupid. But I'm going to plod on. Now let me start with preemptive rant, which I might be aiming less at Elkins and more at my imagined enemies, but here goes. I do keenly dislike the theory that Snape had something to do with torturing the Longbottoms. I concede to what Finwitch for one has stated that Snape's probably guilty of doing worse things, perhaps innumerable times, and over the course of many years. True. However I can't imagine what he'd be doing here, long after he turned spy, after Voldemort disappeared and the DEs formally disbanded. I am certainly not in the 'Snape is still Evil' camp. :-) However, I'm not sure that's even what Elkins was implying at all, so it might just be my own paranoia. Anyway, what do we have here? Elkins points out all the ways in which Neville seems to lack wizarding pride and refuses to take part in the obligation to grow up big and strong and avenge his wronged parents. He goes out of his way to make it look (and perhaps make himself believe) that he's incapable of doing so. Snape OTOH is the very epitome of exactly what Neville is trying to avoid being himself. Is that what scares him? That Snape could be an image his fully actualized self? And Snape has the gall to realize this? > > > Oh, I've no idea. Maybe I don't either. > > Maybe the image of Snape in Gran's clothing symbolizes more that we > > first suspected... > > Oooooooh, yes.? I'm firmly of the belief that it does. Now again, unless you're suggesting that Snape really is a closet (or is that wardrobe?) transvestite, then I think you're going somewhere terribly interesting with this. Is this the partner to the hint you dropped above, that maybe the real culprit was not even a DE? "'...Neville, I believe you live with your grandmother?' 'Er -- yes,' said Neville nervously, 'But I don't want the Boggart to turn into her, either.'" Hmmm. Maybe I'm way misinterpreting you here, but are you suggesting that one might not have to go so far from the Longbottom home to find an accessory to his parents torture? Because if you are, well, you did ask: > Tell > me, memory charm fans: what do *you* see as the narrative function of > this plotline?? What do you imagine its thematic purpose to be?? What > do you perceive as the thematic relevance of issues of memory, > remembrance, and the past to the story as a whole? And I'd have to answer that the deadly problem within the immediate family is a theme that keeps coming up over and over, isn't it? Maybe my problem is that I'm too steeped in Freudian thought, but it seems to me that the overall trajectory of the HP series is of finding out scandalous crap about your parents, your family and by extension, yourself. Maybe it's just that I'm over-identified with Snape, but when he hastens to assure Harry that his "saintly father" wasn't really all that, I kind of got a premonition of 'oh, that's they way it's going to go, isn't it?' Harry's whole quest is to put together the pieces of what really happened to his parents, the circumstances of their violent death. And JKR herself has threatened to drop a bombshell or two about Lily. I'm not saying that Harry's parents are bad, by any means, but I am saying that the theme of the books seems to be ugly secrets that revolve somewhere around the general vicinity of where your parents are. I mean, look at the Crouch family. That's an ugly secret. And a spectacular parricide, which in turn was a loving homage to LV's own parri-, granparri-, and gran-matricide. And nestled in amongst all the examples of children who are carbon copies of their parents are the characters who are desperately trying, like Hagrid, and even Crouch Jr. himself, to live out from under the shadow of their families. I'm just trying to draw all the threads together. Harry's own problem remembering what happened on the night his parents died figures like a traumatic repetition. He keeps having the same dream over and over and it slowly gets clearer. He's tempted by the Mirror of Erised because it's the repository of memories he doesn't otherwise have, an he's perversely attracted to the Dementors because within them he can hear the voice of his mother, however horrible that may be. Both these temptations are figured as a form of repression and depression; Dumbledore has to warn him away from the mirror and it's clear that the Dementors represent the worst mental state possible. So Harry's memories are dangerous to his psyche, and seductive, but it's hard to imagine the series will end without finally clearing up a lot of the mystery about the Potters. And this might not be so easy on Harry. So Neville's problem is either an echo or a counter-example to Harry's. I'm not sure yet, but there do seem to be some parallels. Neville's memories would be traumatic, if he could access them. There's the chance that if he can then we'll discover some unspeakable scandal, far worse than corruption in the MOM which we already know about. And then we were talking about Neville's problem owning up to his magical power. I think his cultivated ineptness is related to the memory charm, but perhaps only thematically. Perhaps his susceptibility to forgetting parallels his refusal to acknowledge his power. Maybe he's trying to forget, or quash, some part of himself because it reminds him too much of what he can't bear to acknowledge. Something about his own family? Something he thinks he's inherited that's too dangerous to admit to? If the series in general revolves around Harry accepting his legacy as a Potter, then maybe Neville is there to demonstrate the refusal to accept a legacy, and just exactly why legacies are such a dangerous and threatening things to have. But Neville will manage to deal with it acceptably in the end. The Hat did put him in Gryffindor, after all. :-) ~~Porphyria [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Mar 21 07:08:16 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 07:08:16 -0000 Subject: Dobby & his family, Snape & Gryffindor, Good & Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36788 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "saintbacchus" wrote: > Finwitch writes: > << > He got it all wrong. Snarling insults at students never > helps them to learn. Besides, he's illogical on how a > Gryffindor is supposed to be. He yells at them when they > don't help Neville *and* when they do help him. Giving > penalty to Hermione for giving correct answers? No - > he's giving them penalties no matter WHAT they do in his > class. > >> > > Well, Snape's attitude doesn't help Neville, but I don't > think there's any evidence that the other students are > substantially affected. > > When I was in 11th grade English, I had a really nice > teacher. She was very generous with her grades and > didn't make us do much work. Great, but when I got to > 12th grade English, I had a wise-ass teacher who wrote > snide comments all over my papers. For me at least, the > drive to get a paper back with no comments on it improved > my essays by years. In Essays, not public - and supposedly not very personal, but about the essay. I've had benefit of a *great* teacher - she was strict, exact, expected us to work for each and every lesson regardless whether she was there but, *never* any insults at a student. It was always task-based commentary - on exactly why this way to solve the problem isn't enough. Contrasting to Snape: calling someone "idiot" on an error and losing temper is not helping anyone to learn anything but reluctance to try. > Likewise, Snape's constant punishment of Gryffindor > students seems to strengthen their resolve. Harry never > walks away from a Snape-related injustice wondering if > maybe he's just a bad kid; he's more sure than ever of > his moral center. Well, Harry - who's already got blamed and punished by Dursleys for something he didn't know he did - or didn't do. We don't know how Hermione reacts - or the others. Neville's probably even more convinced on being no-good a wizard... Also... Snape blaming Harry for thing X -- Harry didn't do it, but *someone* did! Who's the one yearning for attention and public adorance? Ron, perhaps? From kendra_grant at fantasysales.net Thu Mar 21 10:25:54 2002 From: kendra_grant at fantasysales.net (Kendra Grant-Bingham) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 05:25:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Phoenix bird and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <1016673802.7316.58718.m8@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020321052524.00a6fd90@mail.fantasysales.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36789 Eloise writes: ~~~~~In fact, according to myth, well, western myth at least ( I know they occur in Chinese/Japanese myth too) there is only one. Not just special, * unique*. This is not to deny that we may learn more of his special powers.~~~~~ Kendra writes: The phoenix bird symbolizes immortality, resurrection and life after death. In ancient Greek and Egyptian mythology, it is associated with the sun god. According to the Greeks, the bird lives in Arabia, near a cool well. Every morning at dawn, the sun god would stop his chariot to listen to the bird sing a beautiful song while it bathed in the well. Only one phoenix exists at a time. When the bird felt its death was near, every 500 to 1,461 years, it would build a nest of aromatic wood and set it on fire. The bird then was consumed by the flames. A new phoenix sprang forth from the pyre. It embalmed the ashes of its predecessor in an egg of myrrh and flew with it to Heliopolis, "city of the sun," where the egg was deposited on the altar of the sun god. In Egypt, it was usually depicted as a heron, but in the classic literature as a peacock or an eagle. Eloise writes: ~~~~~It has been speculated before that he is an animagus. I should say it was highly likely. But there is no need for him to be unregistered: Hermione only checked the animagi registered that century, Dumbledore is about 150, isn't he, so he could have been registered in the previous century.~~~~~ Kendra writes: I would think that, no matter HOW old he is, or even if he was registered in the previous century, as long as he is alive, his registration would still be valid in THIS century. --- Kendra Grant-Bingham ~~~~~Phoenix Moonshadow Wych~~~~~ "Gryffindor House ...where Friendship and Bravery count." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Mar 21 11:30:31 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 06:30:31 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Shack Flints, Snape's motivation Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36790 Porphyria: > For one thing, I think Marina is right about the potion. When we first > see Snape deliver the potion to Lupin, Snape makes a point of telling > him to drink it up right away. Lupin does, while the goblet is still > smoking. That makes me think that the potion has to be drunk while it's > still hot or while whatever chemical reaction it's doing is still going > on. So taking it to the Shack wouldn't have worked. I agree also with > Marina that taking Lupin back to the castle might have been Snape's only > option, and that might have been what he intended to do if he'd simply > discovered that Lupin had zoned and was just taking a long meditative > walk that night. Snape might know exactly when Lupin is supposed to > transform, and IIRC there would have been plenty of time to get Lupin > The trouble with this, as someone pointed out once, is that Snape tells Lupin, in the scene where we first encounter the wolfsbane potion, that he's made a whole cauldronful, should Lupin need more. Well, OK, perhaps it just needs to be *hot*, but surely he could heat it if necessary. Magically boiling kettles doesn't seem to be a problem. Or maybe it can't be *reheated*, and he's keeping the batch warm in his cauldron, devotedly tending it night and day, making sure it doesn't boil dry. You see how I'm bending over backwards to try and accomodate you? :-) Porphyria: > However, I don't think that Snape imagines that Lupin was going to the > Shack just to transform in peace. Cindy says that Snape must imagine > this because he has no foundation to believe anything else. I disagree. > When Snape arrives at the Shack practically the first thing he says is: > "I've told the headmaster again and again that you're helping your old > friend Black into the castle, Lupin, and here's the proof. Not even I > dreamed you would have the nerve to use this old place as your > hideout --" Snape *has* suspected Lupin all along of being in league > with Black, and to me this line means that when he saw Lupin making a > mad dash for the Shack that he immediately figured he was up to no good. > I believe he went to the Shack expecting to find Black there as well. > Eloise: Yes, so do I. Porphyria: > Marina added: > > > This also fits in with hints given earlier in the book that Snape is > > still afraid of Lupin. Maybe that fear's been eating away at him, > > and Snape was actually looking for an excuse to face the werewolf > > and prove to himself that he no longer needs arrogant Quidditch > > jocks to rescue him in such situations. > > I like this, although I'm not sure where you see hints of Snape still > being afraid of Lupin. I'm totally willing to believe that Snape was > trying to redo the past by confronting Lupin and thus redeeming has past > Eloise: Marina expands on this in a later post. I'll respond below. I too think Snape is trying to redeem a past event, but not the same one (see below). I > have no trouble believing that Snape would have recognized James's > cloak. They are very rare, Snape probably observed James using it when > they were kids and he probably knew that Dumbledore wound up hanging on > to the cloak to bequeath to Harry when the time came. This all strikes > me as reasonable. > Eloise: I'm sure he's known for ages that Harry is using it. His famous ability to put two and two together. Porphyria: > Eloise: I'm sorry, but I need help again. What does this mean? Translate, please. Porphyria: > OK, since don't want to make a one liner reply to Eloise's recent reply > to me, I'll do it here. Darling, I will defer to your version of SUCCESS > if you let me have my way defending Snape's actions on Shack night. :-) > Any chance of a deal? What if there's a fifth of single malt in it for > ? Eloise: So you think I'm the kind of girl who can be bought with a drink, do you? :-) Well, since you've been so kind as to purchase a bottle of my favourite tipple, why don't we break it open and settle down to discuss things? I'm sure in a couple of dram's time, our differences won't seem so great! Now am I right to think that the difference is this? You suggested that Snape's motivations on going to the Shack are ....how do I put this.....altruistic - either to prevent Lupin's transformation into a dangerous werewolf, or to protect Harry and everyone else from Sirius. I on the other hand suggested that his reasons are personal, to do with wanting to catch Lupin and Sirius out of revenge. Is that the core of the problem? OK. Well, I did admit that I think he does have those higher motives tucked away somewhere. The thing is that Snape operates on several levels simultaneously, with different layers of motivation. He *does* want to protect Harry and everyone else from Black. That's part of his role as a key member of Dumbledore's team and that role and the trust that Dumbledore places in him are very important to him. But I think he also has personal motivation. Now, before we go any further, Porphyria my dear, I'd like you to come over here and look at this can(n)on that I captured from the opposition. I think they've forgotten about it as it doesn't seem to have been fired recently, but it looks a bit dangerous. Have a look at the writing on the side. No! don't say it out loud! ... Quietly then, " 'Vengeance is very sweet,' Snape breathed at Black. 'How I hoped I would be the one to catch you...' " Now to me, that's pretty unequivocal. This is *personal*. Vendetta time. But I think if we work quickly, I think we can disable this particular cannon before they realise it's missing and send in a raiding party to reclaim it. Why does Snape want revenge on Sirius? (Eloise and Porphyria are forced to cover their ears as a great shout goes up on all sides) No, No, NO!!! How many times do I have to tell you? It is NOT the dratted Prank. You see Snape believes, truly believes, that Sirius Black is the one who betrayed the Potters. He's wrong. We know that, but he doesn't; even Dumbledore doesn't. As far as Snape's concerned, he's in league with Voldemort and he betrayed his best friend to him. What was Snape doing at the time? Working against Voldemort. More specifically, we believe from the canon hints, he was trying to *prevent* James and Lily's deaths. So it *is* personal. There was Severus, trying to protect this guy he detested and his wife who- well insert your own version of things here - and Black thwarts him. On one level (remember, this is Snape of the several layers) he's prevented him from repaying the life-debt he owes James - permanently. On another level, here was his opportunity to really *prove* himself, to do something really worthwhile for the Light side and it's snatched away from him. There he was, doing something he really didn't want to do, but doing it out of principal and loyalty, as part of this new-found ethical existence he was trying to come to terms with and Black smashes his efforts to smithereens. So there *is* revenge. Well, Snape himself tells us that, but it's revenge on several levels. There's a personal revenge against the man who prevented him from repaying a life-debt. There's a possibly even bigger personal revenge against the man who thwarted his efforts to do something great for the Cause. And there's a non-personal revenge. The revenge of the righteous man against the evil doer, of the wizard on the Light Side against the Dark enemy. So yes. Assuming that he believed that Lupin was aiding Sirius, Snape had a lot of reasons for going up to the Shack. I'll agree that they some of these were entirely honourable and I certainly think that the personal motives were deep, not just a petty desire for retribution. ther. Are we still friends? Marina explains why she thinks Snape is afraid of Lupin: >Mainly in the scene where Snape brings the potion to Lupin's office >while Lupin and Harry are talking. I don't have my copy of PoA handy, >so I can't cite it exactly, but I thought Snape's behavior in that >scene is rather striking. He seems very tense; he's described as >"unsmiling and watchful"; he does not produce a single sneer or >sarcastic remark; his eyes dart around the room; and he backs out of >the room, which to me implies that he was unwilling to turn his back >on Lupin. All of which adds up to make me think that, at the very >least, Lupin makes Snape *really* nervous. It *is*rather striking, isn't it? Until now, I had put his behaviour down to his finding Harry with Lupin somewhat putting him off his stride. He's probably got a nice string of sarky remarks worked out which he suddenly found himself unable to use in front of a student (Sorry, Porphyria. We may know better, but can't we admit that the Snape JKR portrays quite often just isn't very nice?). But the backing out. He knows Lupin's not in danger of transforming, so what is it? Does he think he might hex him or something? Or does he just think that where Potter is, there must be trouble? Wondering what they're up to? >From his POV, Lupin's already colluded with students against him in the boggart incident. Perhaps he's expecting them to play a trick on him. Denting to the pride. I don't know. But an interesting point, Marina. Even more interesting to me is your suggestion that Snape wanted to prove himself. I do think this is a *big* motivational factor where he's concerned. Now I know the poor man is not entirely in control of his actions. Somebody seems to be manipulating him a little, I feel, in order to forward the plot. Nevertheless, what *should* he have done when he saw Lupin disappearing towards the Whomping Willow on the Map? Given the situation and the fact that he was likely to meet not only a werewolf, but a dangerous, wanted man whom the MoM needed a bevy of trained Hit Wizards to contain, shouldn't he have gone to Dumbledore? With the Map (the map that Dumbledore is still in the dark about a year later). But our Severus doesn't do that, does he? He goes off by himself. Just like he went to head Quirrell off from the Stone by himself. Just like he takes it upon himself, and himself alone, to protect Harry from Quirrell during quidditch matches. He has problems with being a team player in these important things. Why? I think it's all down to a thirst to prove himself. I think he needs to prove himself worthy of his place at Dumbledore's side. Whether he craves the approval of others, I'm not sure, though I believe it likely. I certainly think he wants recognition. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Mar 21 13:06:39 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:06:39 -0000 Subject: DEs recognising one another? (was Re: Who's Afraid Of The In-Reply-To: <004b01c1d087$14559540$e97663d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36791 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda" wrote: > Finwitch said, implying that Snape knew fake-Moody's real identity during > the hall confrontation: > > > But - it wasn't *real* Moody. It was a DE called Bartholomeus Crouch. > > Snape's DE mark revealed that or did it? > > Where did you get that? The Dark Mark was a means for DEs to recognize each > other, but we are not told *how.* The Marks gradually grow more recognizable > as Voldemort gains strength--but at this point in the story would it even be > visible yet? I'm betting there's some surreptitious, innocuous "trigger" to > making it tingle or burn or something in order to recognize a Fellow; > otherwise rounding up the DEs would have been childishly easy and there > would not be such mystery as to who was and was not. And there is no reason > for (a) Snape to try this at a person he has no reason to suspect is *not* > Moody, or for (b) Barty Jr. to try this at a person he considers a traitor, > and thus blow his cover. > No. Voldemort would never allow a mechanism that would enable one DE to recognise another. Remember we're talking about a secret organisation - for one member to potentially be able to point out ALL other members means that one traitor can bring down the whole organisation. At the graveyard scence, we saw how Voldemort used the mark - as a means to call his followers to his side. I don't remember his exact words, but I did get the impression that he is the only one who can make use of the mark. Naama From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Mar 21 13:55:12 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:55:12 -0000 Subject: Still-Life With Memory Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36792 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > More to the point, though, what do people imagine the *thematic* > function of a Memory Charmed Neville plotline to be? I have my own > reasons for considering it a fascinating possibility, but although > I've already hinted quite strongly at them, I'm now finding myself > feeling reluctant to go into any greater detail along those lines, > as I do recognize that my own favored reading of Neville is not > only highly idiosyncratic, and not only unusual, and not only > subversive, but also actively *hostile* to what I believe to be the > author's true intent. > > I therefore would like to open up this field of inquiry to others who > do not share my hostility to the authorial perspective when it comes > to Neville and his thematic relevance to the story as a whole. Tell > me, memory charm fans: what do *you* see as the narrative function of > this plotline? What do you imagine its thematic purpose to be? What > do you perceive as the thematic relevance of issues of memory, > remembrance, and the past to the story as a whole? > Amazing, Elkins (although I do not agree with your "highly idiosyncratic" reading of Neville!). I have just one idea to offer, and it is this: why couldn't it have been Neville's PARENTS who had put him under a memory charm? Suppose the Longbottoms to be in posession of some crucial information, probably regarding Voldemort, and that Neville (as a very young child) also, somehow, got to know whatever it is. To protect him, the parents obliviate him. Or, wait, I have a better scenario. The Longbottoms somehow get word that they are about to be attacked and are afraid that they may die. Which means that with them dies the important information (whatever it may be). They tell it to Neville (somehow), put him under the memory charm, and send him to his grandmother. Maybe they also put themselves under a Lunatic charm, i.e., a charm that turns them insane the minute they are about to divulge the secret? If so, then it makes sense that the memory charm has an inbuilt expiration mechanism. Maybe the charm will expire once Neville reaches a certain age? Or, maybe the hidden knowledge is supposed to be triggered by some event (meeting with Voldemort, maybe)? What if Neville carries, unbeknowest to him, the information that Harry will need in order to vanquish Voldemort? (Smeagol's soft spot comes to mind... ) It is the last battle. Harry is facing Voldemort, wands aloft. A bloody and semi-unconcsious Neville is lying on the floor (having been flung to the wall by a contemptous Voldemort). He opens his eyes blearily. Their glazed look changes, focuses inwardly, he screams at Harry ..... And Voldemort, with a look of utter fury, dies. Okay. So I'm not a good prose writer. But you get the idea, right? Neville, the Raven (whatsitsname?), carrier of secret information, the unexpected source, etc. Naama From tabouli at unite.com.au Thu Mar 21 14:18:14 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 01:18:14 +1100 Subject: SHIP: Trelawney and still life with toad Message-ID: <023e01c1d0e3$50477b20$9330c2cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 36793 Ama: > I'm not really sure how old Trelawney is. I mean, I get the impression she IS old, but there doesn't seem to be anything in the text to support or refute this.< I've always imagined her as late forties or so, old enough to have a face written with lines of mystic wisdom, but young enough to retain a mass of untidy dark curls, as worn by all good gypsy fortune teller archetypes. She probably needs those big hoopy earrings as well, and already has the jingle of bangles, chains and bells, rings on every finger and shawl. I always liked Tealin Raintree's interpretation of her (I think there's a link to her art on the Lexicon somewhere...). Of course, seeing wizards age slower, she could easily have taken longer than 48 years or so to achieve the look. Or applied it artificially. Hmm, this musing reminds me of something. You know, despite the ever-proliferating flotillas roaming Theory Bay, I have yet to witness a ship which rustles up some romance for the slender, sultry Sibyll. Come now, listmembers, even Wormtail has had some action lately. Don't skinny fortune-telling frauds deserve love too? Aren't there any Potterverse characters with a taste for green sequins out there? And what about that smouldering, sensual atmosphere she cultivates up in her little tower love nest? Are we saying that all those perfumes and incenses are going to waste?? Meanwhile, out in Theory Bay... *** The seas have been rough lately. After several days battling the storms of destruction and dastardry, Captain Tabouli safely sails her Ship back into harbour. The time has come to check for any damages sustained. Her mind turns immediately to the FLIRTIAC dinghy, recently defaced in an audacious attack from Elkins. To her relief, it is still intact, and the last of the spraypaint has been stripped from her figurehead, with the culprit nowhere to be seen. The Captain nods grimly, and is about to find someone to repair a nasty tear in the mainsail when something onshore catches her eye. It is a group of people. Judging by the way they are huddled together and glancing warily out to sea, they appear to be conspiring, or otherwise Up To No Good. On closer inspection with her telescope, Captain Tabouli is appalled to observe among them is no less than Elkins herself, wearing kayaking gear and accompanied by a shady looking character with wringing hands and sorrowful brown eyes and a tough-looking woman wearing a FEATHERBOA and carrying a large and menacing paddle. The telescope quivers in her suddenly perspiring hands. What dicy deeds could they be up to now? Slowly, dreading what she might see, she zooms in on the conspirators and a still more alarming apparition comes into focus... a shadowy figure in a pipe and swirling black cloak waving what appears to be a glossy brochure covered in pictures of yachts, rafts and sundry sea-going vessels. It is even dicier than she feared. It can only be Dicentra the Dastardly Dinghy Dealer, perfidious purveyor of Bargain Basement Boats! Panicking, the good Captain races down to her storeroom, where she pulls out the last days of reports from her spies. She knew there were rumours that the Dastardly Dicentra had infiltrated the Fourth Man Kayak, pretending to paddle along with their flimsy fancies in order to lure them into wreaking hovercraft havoc on the seas, but in the recent storms she neglected to keep an eye on her. There is only one thing to be done. She radios her most trusted crew and gets them to prepare the submarine. Moments later, Captain Tabouli is stealthily approaching the dock, inches from the floor of Theory Bay. When she judges that she is close enough to the conspirators to overhears their treacherous transactions, she discreetly extends the periscope-with-built-in-microphone (cleverly disguised as the Loch Ness Monster) and twiddles the focussing knob. The entire viewing screen resolves into a single, pulsing eye! The Captain reels back from this horrifying sight. It is several minutes before she has composed herself enough to recognise what it is. It is the eye of a toad, who appears to have hopped onto the periscope just as it broke the surface and is now peering inside. Irritated, she spins the periscope around and extends it up and down to dislodge the intruding amphibian, but it clings to the periscope and croaks plaintively into the microphone, sounding rejected and forlorn. It is wearing a small collar, on which she can faintly make out the word "Keeper". The Captain's efforts finally shift the toad so that its foot, rather than its face, is over the lens and she is able to peer out onto the dock through its suction cup toes... To her dismay, the hovercraft transaction appears to be complete. The Dastardly Dicentra is clinking with coins, a sinister smile playing about her lips. Worse still, Elkins is expounding enthusiastically, and the other conspirators are listening enthralled. In Elkin's paint-speckled hand is a document headed "DEPRECIATION (Death Eaters Produced Really Evil Charm, Invoking Amnesia To Incapacitate Our Neville): New Evidence Comes To Light!" Underneath is what appears to be plans for a longboat positively *bristling* with canons. Captain Tabouli twiddles her knobs once more and brings them into focus. The central canon appears to be mounted on a parallel between Neville's forgetful, bungling behaviour and that of other people subjected to Memory Charms (principally Bertha Jorkins, but also Mr Roberts). Captain Tabouli glances away from the periscope viewing screen and looks out a porthole into the sea. A small red herring flits by. She decides it is time to come clean. *** You know, I've never been sold on this Memory Charmed Neville concept. From all I've gathered about Memory Charms, they: 1. Are used primarily to safeguard secret information by convincing a witness that it Did Not Really Happen (hence their use by Lockhart on his victims and by the Ministry of Magic on Muggles who witness magic at work). 2. Are applied as soon as possible after the witnessed event, before the witness can tell anyone, and before the memory becomes too established in the witness' mind (hence the need for Constant Vigilance before the Muggle media print anything). 3. Have an effect which wears off within a few hours at most (hence Mr Roberts needed to be re-Charmed several times each day). 4. Vary in strength depending on the magnitude of the event witnessed; an extremely strong one can damage the witness' memory permanently. Now. Most Memory Charmed Neville advocates suggest the Charm was put on Neville as a toddler to wipe out the traumatic memory of his parents being tortured into insanity, about 10 years or so prior to his forgetful arrival at Hogwarts. Since then, the argument presumably goes, Neville's memory has never been the same, and he is therefore forgetful, clumsy, bungling and so on. Hmmmm. You know, I've always secretly thought this theory was mostly a justification for Neville fans who want to show that Their Boy is really a smart, powerful wizard who's only forgetful etc. because he's been Wronged, because IMO it really doesn't fit in with our current profile of the Memory Charm. I also think that the most important question to answer in this theory is what Elkins alluded to in the latter part of her message: who *gave* him this Memory Charm, and were his/her intentions fair or foul? Fair: Under this theory, some Ministry of Magic officials, Aurors or similar turned up at the scene of the crime, ambushed Crouch Jnr, the Lestranges and the Fourth Man, packed them off to Azkaban pre-trial, and then went back to pick up the pieces, viz. two Crucio-crazed Longbottoms, whom they carted to St Mungo's, and a gibbering tot hiding under the sofa, whose memory they thoughtfully wiped with a Memory Charm so he wouldn't be traumatised for life. Unfortunately, making him forget something so Big required a Mega-Memory Charm which accidentally damaged his memory permanently. Well, good, good, but um, if the Big Coverup was to protect Neville from traumatic knowledge of the incident, why not whisk him away after the Charm, protect him from the aftermath, and tell him his parents are dead instead of telling him all about the Crucio incident and traumatising him by *taking him to see them* every holidays? His relatives have obviously told him enough to make it Stick In His Memory enough to distress him horribly when fake Moody tortures the spider. Are we saying that covered it up (tricky, given that they would have been pretty traumatised themselves - did they keep on Charming him every few hours for a couple of months until they themselves were under control? How did they explain the disappearance of his parents, traumatic enough in itself? More memory charms?) they coddled him along until he was "old enough to handle it" and *then* told him the gory details and took him to see his gibbering mum and dad, hence undoing all the good work? Hmmm. Foul: The quiversome quartet arrive at the Longbottoms' and clobber 'em with Crucio for information about Voldemort's whereabouts, thereby traumatising Neville, etc.etc. Then they get wind of their discovery at the hands of the Aurors, wipe Neville's memory to conceal their identities and Apparate away. Being Evil, and not caring whether they ruined a little lad's life, they used a Mega-Memory Charm to make sure, damaging his memory permanently. This I find a bit more likely, but still unconvincing. What happened to Dead Men Don't Tell Tales? Come on, these Death Eaters were trained by Lord "Kill the Spare" Voldemort! If Neville was watching and they thought his toddler testimony would be a threat, why not use the one spell you have time for to AK him? Why bother with a Memory Charm (unless you go for the AK is too exhausting theory)? For that matter, given the fact that they left the Longbottoms alive convicted them in the end (through the extraction of none too reliable information, given their condition), why didn't they just kill them off when they found them of no use, to safeguard themselves? As for their evidently dreadful condition while giving testimony, is Neville included in this? [Presumably if they were aiming to get information out of Frank, they didn't *intentionally* break his mind with Crucio... what would be the point? Once he's incoherently insane, he's useless to them. So OK, first they torture Frank, he won't sing, then they torture Frank's wife until she goes insane (during which time Frank would have needed to be watching and of sound mind, otherwise this ploy is pointless). Was this what made Frank crack? I'd say yes (because they *wanted* Frank of sound mind so he could tell them where Voldemort was), unless, of course, they turned on him and Crucio'd him into madness in revenge when he wouldn't talk] I dunno. My impression was always that JKR *gave* us the reason for Neville's bad memory in GoF: his memory's fine, it's just that most of his disk space is dominated by traumatic memories of and associations with his parents and what happened to them, interfering with his ability to focus effectively on things like schoolwork. I happily buy Elkins' evidence that Neville is in fact a powerful wizard with poor control. In fact, I say this it is *because* he is struggling to repress so much baggage that his performance and memory is so uneven. Perhaps he's afraid to let go (in the way he must learn to do properly to train as a wizard) because on some level he's terrified of power because he knows all too horribly how it can be misused. Hence he goes to pieces when a powermongering known ex-DE like Snape bullies him, and performs better in a nice safe subject like Herbology (which surely involves lots of memorisation, no?). Hence when he *does* lose his repressive grip the results are powerful and uncontrolled. *** Shaking her head at Elkins' continuing depravity, Captain Tabouli decides she has seen enough. She turns the submarine for LOLLIPOPS and follows the red herring back out to sea. Just as she is reaching for the button to retract the periscope, a moist, pleading eye appears once more on her screen. It is the toad, still clinging pathetically. Being a kindly soul at heart, the Captain decides to provide him with a haven. After all, back on board she does have a drawing board where she once sketched out her own personalised versions of the ToadKeeper theory (see Feb 23rd's shipping bulletin "Quaffling, Herm-eyeofevil-ne, Wizard justice, fickle Florence"). One involved Florence Longbottom-to-be snogging Mr Lestrange behind the greenhouses and then being punished by the vengeful Mrs Lestrange by having her soul entombed in the body of a *male* toad (depriving her of both humanity and femininity in one foul stroke), which, unbeknownst to Neville, lived for years in the algae covered pond of Uncle Algy until s/he knew it was time for Neville to go to Hogwarts, whereupon s/he hops into Uncle Algy's hands just as he was speculating on a going-to-school present. The other, more sinister ToadKeeper theory is that Trevor is in fact the evil Trevor Lestrange, who cunningly exchanged his soul for that of a toad's on his way to Azkaban, letting his toad-souled human body to rot while he hopped over to Uncle Algy's place to Spy on the Longbottoms, and then, more cunningly still, wangled his way to school with Neville, where he was ideally placed to roam about and spy on Voldemort's ultimate enemy... Harry Potter. Before the submarine surfaces to LOLLIPOPS' starboard bow, Captain Tabouli extends the periscope up to the deck and lets the toad hop aboard. She then re-embarks herself, and picks him up, stroking his warty skin affectionately. Toad in hand, she descends to her cabin, new and intricate theories already flowering in her mind... Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From plumeski at yahoo.com Thu Mar 21 14:15:10 2002 From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:15:10 -0000 Subject: Still-Life With Memory Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36794 Porphyria wrote: [Lots About Memory Charms, mirroring Neville with Harry, families, etc] > So Neville's problem is either an echo or a counter-example to Harry's. I'd go a step further. How's this for an idea? Neville suffers not from a memory *charm*, but a memory *curse*. What I mean by that, is that the trauma of his parents' torture hasn't been wiped from his mind, but on the contrary, has been deliberately embedded in such detail and so inextricably, that every waking moment, he relives the experience over and over and over again. Thus his short-term memory has been shot, his self-confidence is shot, and his whole self-image is damaged. Secondarily, his psyche reasons that if this is what being "powerful" can do to you, he wants no part of it. He therefore deals with it by being a wimp on top of being forgetful. The overt and visible power which Snape represents is a constant reminder to him, and it is that power which he fears in Snape, rather than anything else. As several people have pointed out in this thread, memory is an oft- recurring thread in the ongoing storyline. The penseive, through which Dumbly-Dore disposseses himself of memories not relevant to the present, Harry's repeated pain at recalling details of his parents' death (which in some respects he would prefer to forget), and the notion of the memory charm itself (a huge sub-text element of Book Two), are all about forgetting. The ability to forget is as important to the health of the human psyche as the ability to remember. What if Neville is, quite simply, incapable of forgetting? This, of course, also juxtaposes his parents' situation, in that they can't remember... And while I'm here... Something not directly related which I've been trying to figure out. The main way in which Neville's problems with Snape show up is his knack of destroying cauldrons. We're reminded of this several times. What's so important about that element, or am I just reading too much into it? From sophiamcl at hotmail.com Thu Mar 21 12:58:47 2002 From: sophiamcl at hotmail.com (sophia mclaughlin) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 12:58:47 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Privit Drive Safety Zone Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36795 There has been a discussion as to the nature of the Safety Zone at Privit Drive. Did I really miss something, or is it anywhere clearly stated that Privit Drive was a safety zone from MAGIC? All evidence points to the contrary, considering all the magic that does take place there. Isn't there anyone else out there who thinks the safety zone applies exclusively to Voldemorts power? Sophia _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From betsyfallon at hotmail.com Thu Mar 21 14:36:04 2002 From: betsyfallon at hotmail.com (betsyfallon) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:36:04 -0000 Subject: Dobby height In-Reply-To: <15F4D924.16C4A975.B13B89B9@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36796 I am 4'11 and I mesasured my knee length and it came to 15 inches. I know this is going to sound crazy, but one of the guys that I work with is 6'3" so I measured his knee length. From the ground to the top of his knees is 2 feet. So I figure that we must all be on the right track. Winky is behind Snape and looks around from behind his knees. I would venture to guess that this experiment leads me to believe that they are between 2 feet and 2'6" tall. Thanks to all for your help Betsy > > If it's true that Winky comes up to Snape's knees, then she must be about a foot and a half or so- three feet tall (a meter or yard) would be about waist height. > > -kel > > > > -- > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > 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 porphyria at mindspring.com Thu Mar 21 18:04:39 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:04:39 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Shack Flints, Snape's motivation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1D1950BC-3CF6-11D6-ABF7-000393465128@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36797 About Snape taking or not taking Lupin his potion, I wrote: > > That makes me think that the potion has to be drunk while it's > > still hot or while whatever chemical reaction it's doing is still > going > > on. So taking it to the Shack wouldn't have worked. And Eloise replied: > The trouble with this, as someone pointed out once, is that Snape tells > Lupin, in the scene where we first encounter the wolfsbane potion, that > he's > made a whole cauldronful, should Lupin need more. Well, OK, perhaps it > just > needs to be *hot*, but surely he could heat it if necessary. Magically > boiling kettles doesn't seem to be a problem. Or maybe it can't be > *reheated*, and he's keeping the batch warm in his cauldron, devotedly > tending it night and day, making sure it doesn't boil dry. You see how > I'm > bending over backwards to try and accomodate you? :-) Well I really don't want you to hurt yourself over this. Unless you're a Yoga expert, in which case, feel free. But I was observing that Snape made a point of telling Lupin to "drink that directly." And given that we do know this potion is complicated to made and fragile enough that the addition of sugar neutralizes its effects, I don't think it's necessarily a stretch to assume that some elaborate, last-minute thing has to be done to it to it before it's drinkable, and that it's a million times easier for Snape to do this in his lab rather than conjuring up a bunch of supplies on location. A whole cauldronful in reserve doesn't preclude this; perhaps the last-minute prep is a lot more complicated than just reheating it. If I had any background in organic chemistry I could probably think of something better than 'it needs to be hot.' I'm not sure the potion even smokes for this reason; the goblet keeps on smoking even after the stuff is drunk, so maybe it's some magical process that makes it smoke in the first place. Then again, maybe Snape does have a long-lasting 'keep hot but don't boil dry' spell cast over the cauldron. I'm thinking of my long history of mixing frothy Margaritas; you can have a store of the mix, but they have to be drunk right after they're shaken or, like souflees, they fall. (I did say I had no background in Organic Chem, didn't I?) > Porphyria: > > > > > Eloise: > I'm sorry, but I need help again. What does this mean? Translate, > please. Am I being asked to translate a blank line? I think the missing sentence had to do with Flints. Flint=minor mistake. Flinty=bedeviled by tiny plot holes. Forgive me if I've misunderstood your question. > Porphyria: > > OK, since don't want to make a one liner reply to Eloise's recent > reply > > to me, I'll do it here. Darling, I will defer to your version of > SUCCESS > > if you let me have my way defending Snape's actions on Shack > night. :-) > > Any chance of a deal? What if there's a fifth of single malt in it for > > > ? > > Eloise: > So you think I'm the kind of girl who can be bought with a drink, do > you??? > :-) It's always worth a try and I was planning on mooching part of it off you once you got it open anyway. > Well, since you've been so kind as to purchase a bottle of my favourite > tipple, why don't we break it open and settle down to discuss things? > I'm > sure in a couple of dram's time, our differences won't seem so great! See, we might not even need to drink anything to get there: > > Now am I right to think that the difference is this? You suggested that > Snape's motivations on going to the Shack are ....how do I put > this.....altruistic - either to prevent Lupin's? transformation into a > dangerous werewolf, or to protect Harry and everyone else from Sirius. > I on > the other hand suggested that his reasons are personal, to do with > wanting to > catch Lupin and Sirius out of revenge. Is that the core of the problem? Not exactly. Maybe we should hold off on the Scotch for a bit. :-) My original post #36596 was arguing against Cindy's claim that the *only* thing motivating Snape that night was the desire to get Lupin fired. I began by referencing Amanda's claim that "Nobody over the age of three has truly single-minded motives." (I actually didn't quote it, but I should have.) I finished that paragraph by stating "It's a very complicated set of motives and it's not fair to say he had one and only one reason to go after Lupin." In the middle I said a whole bunch of the same things that you go on to say, mainly that he thinks Black is the one who betrayed the Potters, he's really much more upset about that than the Prank, and most of all it's hard to separate his vengeful motives from his altruistic ones. We really agree wholeheartedly. But in post #36724 I thought you might have been accusing me of being blind to his faults, and I don't believe I am. I think I'm admitting to them. In that post you said "I'm rather afraid that at that point his primary motivation, his *conscious* motivation, was simply to get his own back on Lupin, and Sirius too, if possible." And at this point we are completely splitting hairs, but I'd just say that Snape might be a little too proud to admit that *part* of his primary motivation is redoing a traumatic past, and it's much easier for him to take the attitude "Vengeance is very sweet...How I hoped I would be the one to catch you..." (I have no fear of their peashooter canons.) Of course Snape is acting tough here. That's what he does. And of course for him the personal and altruistic are inextricably linked. I never argued that his motives were pure, just not all selfish. > So yes. Assuming that he believed that Lupin was aiding Sirius, Snape > had a > lot of reasons for going up to the Shack.? I'll agree that they some of > these > were entirely honourable and I certainly think that? the personal > motives > were deep, not just a petty desire for retribution. ther. Are we still > friends? I hope so. I'm still eyeing that Scotch. > Marina explains why she thinks Snape is afraid of Lupin: > > >Mainly in the scene where Snape brings the potion to Lupin's office > >while Lupin and Harry are talking.? I don't have my copy of PoA handy, > >so I can't cite it exactly, but I thought Snape's behavior in that > >scene is rather striking.? He seems very tense; he's described as > >"unsmiling and watchful"; he does not produce a single sneer or > >sarcastic remark; his eyes dart around the room; and he backs out of > >the room, which to me implies that he was unwilling to turn his back > >on Lupin.? All of which adds up to make me think that, at the very > >least, Lupin makes Snape *really* nervous. > > It *is*rather striking, isn't it? Until now, I had put his behaviour > down to > his finding Harry with Lupin somewhat putting him off his stride. He's > probably got a nice string of sarky remarks worked out which he suddenly > found himself unable to use in front of a student (Sorry, Porphyria. We > may > know better, but can't we admit that the Snape JKR portrays quite often > just > isn't very nice?). When did I get to be the one arguing that Snape=Leo Buscaglia? Yeesh! If only you knew how much I appreciate his sarcasm. But I actually have to agree with Cindy here, what she wrote in post #36771 in which she concludes "The comparison between Snape's conduct with Moody versus Lupin suggests that Snape isn't the least bit afraid of Lupin, I'd say." For once I can say Cindy is dead on about Snape. :-) Snape probably has at least two things on his mind when he delivers the potion to Lupin. The first is, I think, the one you originally thought of. Finding Harry there derails his train of thought. He probably wanted to say something like "Look, Lupin, I've been studying the Lunar Charts and I think you might need to have another dose or two before the full moon, otherwise your transformation might go rough..." Then he walks in and finds Harry there, and he has to stiffen up because, at this brief instant in time, he's still trying to honor Dumbledore's request to keep the secret. So he has to try to tell Lupin what's on his mind without letting drop any major hints at Harry. But that's not all that throws him. > But the backing out. He knows Lupin's not in danger of transforming, so > what > is it? Does he think he might hex him or something? Or does he just > think > that where Potter is, there must be trouble? Wondering what they're up > to? Yeah, I'd say Snape is definitely wondering why the Werewolf has Harry in his office with the door shut. I don't think for a second Snape is worried about his own safety. I think he's wondering what Lupin's designs on Harry are. I have to say that if a killer escaped from prison, he was overhead threatening to head for the school I taught at, he was universally rumored to be out to kill one of my students, and lo and behold the headmaster just happened to have hired the escapee's old friend as another professor? I'd be thinking the same thing Snape is. I'd be worried. He's tense and cagey and his eyes are wandering between Harry and Lupin because he's taking in evidence. This happened right before Halloween when Black did make his way into the castle, and it wasn't too long after that that Snape took over the DADA class and assigned his infamous essay. I'd say his finding Harry taking tea with Lupin was just another example of Lupin's suspicious behavior and his reactions were the same sort of 'calculating' attitude we've seen him take elsewhere. I'll end by quoting this... > Given the situation and the fact that he was likely to meet not only a > werewolf, but a dangerous, wanted man whom the MoM needed a bevy of > trained > Hit Wizards to contain, shouldn't he have gone to Dumbledore? With the > Map > (the map that Dumbledore is still in the dark about a year later). > But our Severus doesn't do that, does he? He goes off by himself. Just > like > he went to head Quirrell off from the Stone by himself. Just like he > takes it > upon himself, and himself alone, to protect Harry from Quirrell during > quidditch matches. He has problems with being a team player in these > important things. Why? > I think it's all down to a thirst to prove himself. I think he needs to > prove > himself worthy of his place at Dumbledore's side. Whether he craves the > approval of others, I'm not sure, though I believe it likely. I > certainly > think he wants recognition. ...because it's just so well put. Yes! We agree! And just to make it clear, I do agree that a lot of his motivation consists of trying to redeem himself for his past, to prove himself trustworthy again. It all makes much more sense after GoF. ~~Porphyria [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Mar 21 15:28:14 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:28:14 -0000 Subject: Shack Flints, Snape's motivation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36798 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > The trouble with this, as someone pointed out once, is that Snape tells > Lupin, in the scene where we first encounter the wolfsbane potion, that he's > made a whole cauldronful, should Lupin need more. Well, OK, perhaps it just > needs to be *hot*, but surely he could heat it if necessary. Magically > boiling kettles doesn't seem to be a problem. Or maybe it can't be > *reheated*, and he's keeping the batch warm in his cauldron, devotedly > tending it night and day, making sure it doesn't boil dry. You see how I'm > bending over backwards to try and accomodate you? :-) Well, my take on it is that the issue is not time but distance. No matter how careful you are, carrying a cup of liquid around causes the liquid to slosh, and I think the Wolfsbane potion can only tolerate a very limited amount of sloshing. Maybe the ingredients are in layers, like in a Harbor Light, and the layers can't be allowed to mix. Carrying it from the Potions Lab to Lupin's office is okay as long as the carrier walks smoothly and has a steady hand, but lugging it out to the Whomping Willow, down into the tunnel, all the way over to Hogsmeade and up into the Shack is out of the question. > But the backing out. He knows Lupin's not in danger of transforming, so what > is it? Does he think he might hex him or something? Or does he just think > that where Potter is, there must be trouble? Wondering what they're up to? > From his POV, Lupin's already colluded with students against him in the > boggart incident. Perhaps he's expecting them to play a trick on him. Denting > to the pride. I don't know. But an interesting point, Marina. Thanks. I hope I don't alienate myself from the other Snapefans too much with this theory, but I have this strong suspicion that the 16-year-old Severus did not acquit himself at all well when faced with a snarling werewolf in a narrow tunnel. He was not Tough. He screamed like a girl and went wobbly in the knees and forgot all those vaunted Dark Hexes he's been so famous for since he was eleven. In short, he panicked, and to make it worse, he was *seen* panicking -- by James at the very least, and possibly by other Marauders and a few teachers too. How much more humiliating can you get? And now Lupin comes back to the school, and triggers that same visceral fear again. But it's not the same now, is it? Nearly two decades have passed. Snape is now a nasty, Tough ex-Death Eater who's survived things that make werewolves look like fluffy widdle bunnies by comparison. No more panic attacks for him. But ooooh, wouldn't he just itch for a chance to prove it? Even more > interesting to me is your suggestion that Snape wanted to prove himself. I do > think this is a *big* motivational factor where he's concerned. > Given the situation and the fact that he was likely to meet not only a > werewolf, but a dangerous, wanted man whom the MoM needed a bevy of trained > Hit Wizards to contain, shouldn't he have gone to Dumbledore? With the Map > (the map that Dumbledore is still in the dark about a year later). > But our Severus doesn't do that, does he? He goes off by himself. >He has problems with being a team player in these > important things. Why? > I think it's all down to a thirst to prove himself. I think he needs to prove > himself worthy of his place at Dumbledore's side. Whether he craves the > approval of others, I'm not sure, though I believe it likely. I certainly > think he wants recognition. I think you're right. (This is, of course, in no way incompatible with my theory about Snape's fear of Lupin. Gotta love all those layers.) In particular, I think Snape wants recognition from Dumbledore. Which is why he falls apart so badly when Dumbledore takes HRH's side -- not only taking their word over Snape's, but aiding and abetting their efforts to help Black escape, and then standing there twinkling when Snape confronts them with what they both know is true. I like to think that soon after PoA there was an off-stage scene where Snape and Dumbledore sat down and hashed it all out. That would be where Snape was finally persuaded of Sirius' innocence (clearing the way for that handshake at the and of GoF), and where Dumbledore explained that his actions had not been motivated by distrust of Snape. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Mar 21 15:06:57 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:06:57 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Good & Evil/ Dark Mark Message-ID: <76.194d948f.29cb5111@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36799 Anna: > Chyna Rose wonders randomly: > << > Is there a true, clear line between Good and Evil? Does > a means considered 'Evil' (use of 'dark' magic and > artifacts) automatically become good just because the > 'Good' side uses it? And who's to say that they are on > the side of 'Good' in the first place? After all, I'm > sure that V's convinced 100% Right. > >> > > Interesting question. Voldemort's philosophy is kind of > difficult to pin down, because it both conforms to the > model of ideological tyranny (genetic purity, in this > case) and, um, doesn't. Voldemort tells Harry that there > is no good or evil, only power, but Harry rejects this > idea, and I think we're supposed to as well. > > It seems to me that one of the defining characteristics > of the "Good" characters is that they have a strong moral > compass. Or at least, they have a moral compass. They > believe there is a line between Good and Evil. Lucius > Malfoy, Peter Pettigrew, and Voldemort, OTOH, all seem > unconcerned with such concepts; their beliefs and > allegiences shift depending on what serves them best. > It's been theorized that Lucius wouldn't have minded > Draco and Harry becoming friends because their > friendship is potentially useful to him - nevermind that > this is the boy who defeated Lucius' lord and master. > Contrast Harry, who refuses Draco's friendship - a very > powerful alliance - on principal. None of the "Good" > characters are perfect, but they're all able to feel > shame when they've done something wrong and get back on > track. Lucius, Pettigrew, and Voldemort don't seem to > recognize the concept of "wrong," and that's why they're > able to commit such atrocities. > > Now compare that to Voldemort-Era Bartemius Crouch, Sr. > He's so sure that he's in the right that he forgets > what's wrong. And that leads to such intemperate > decisions as giving Aurors free license to kill and > prosecuting his own son without a second thought. > Crouch's philosophy is that if you are right, nothing is > wrong. But as with Voldemort, I think we're led to > believe that this way of thinking is, well, wrong. > > You can even apply this theory to the Dursleys, who at > least ostensibly thought they were doing Harry a favor > by beating the magic out of him, and surely think they're > doing right by Dudley by spoiling him rotten. Again, > they're so caught up in what's "right" that they can't > see the wrong. > > This is where the series achieves its greatest depth, IMO. > So far, I don't think we've seen a villain who so much > chooses to do evil as chooses not to recognize it. It's > . I think you're spot on, Anna. It is exactly my view of the good/evil conflict in HP. Back when we were summarising our Snapetheories, I wrote this: >My understanding of him is that his soul, psyche (whatever) is a battleground, not >perhaps, between good and evil, which is how we might view it from the Light side, >but between the existence and non-existence of good and evil. >(One of the things that has struck me is that the evil in HP is basically manifested >in evil actions, this, along with some distinctly non PC views. Good and evil don't >seem to be anchored in any kind of belief system. We don't appear to have either >good or evil higher powers at work. This is (IMHO) one of the reasons why we have >difficulty in defining exactly what the Dark Arts are. OTOH, Dumbledore and >Voldemort have more than pasing similarities to God and the Devil, at least as, >within the Potterverse, the embodiments of good and evil, so Snape turning from >one to the other *looks* like a conversion.Yet actually, the 'Light' side is full of grey >characters. Even Dumbledore, I think, particularly in the light of recent posts, can >be regarded as grey. The difference between them and the 'Dark' ones, IMO, is that >they recognise that good and evil exist.) Rather than a conflict of 'good' and 'evil', we have a conflict between those who recognise those concepts - those with a moral sense - and those who don't. I note that the idea also comes up in that interesting essay by Grynbaum, which David pointed us to (www.cgjungpage.org/articles/grynbaumpotter.html): 'Rowling is clear that it pays to trust the self, and that the "self" is a progressive undertaking of one's own personal power. Evil for her seems to be a form of unconsciousness.' I think we have an unfortunate but understandable tendency to use 'evil' as a shorthand way of expressing the activities of the Dark side. This is then where we get false conflicts, as far as I am concerned, over for instance, whether Fudge is Evil. I have campaigned long and hard for his status as an evil character, yet I don't think he is conventionally evil. I think he did evil things in the past, but that the evil he now embodies is the evil of lack of consciousness, of an unwillingness to be aware. In fact I think Dark and Light are much more useful concepts. The Light side, being in the light, can see things more clearly, including their own faults. The Dark side walk in ethical blindness. It's terribly hard to say these things without sounding Biblical. Naama writes about the Dark Mark: > No. Voldemort would never allow a mechanism that would enable one DE > to recognise another. Remember we're talking about a secret > organisation - for one member to potentially be able to point out ALL > other members means that one traitor can bring down the whole > organisation. > At the graveyard scence, we saw how Voldemort used the mark - as a > means to call his followers to his side. I don't remember his exact > words, but I did get the impression that he is the only one who can > Eloise: But this contradicts what Snape himself tells us: 'It was a means of distinguishing each other , and his means of summoning us to him.' (GoF 606). In fact we were discussing this topic (or at least, Porphyria and I were) last week. See posts 36545, 36574 and 36596, if you're interested. Of course, there is a weakness in the system, as you point out. Marina points out that this is an infringement of Evil Overlord Rule No 104: 'My undercover agents will not have tattoos identifying them as members of my organisation, nor will they be required to wear military boots or adhere to any other dress code.' But *Evil Overlords* do break the rules. Otherwise, evil triumphs and we can't have that now, can we? Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From landers at email.unc.edu Thu Mar 21 16:16:51 2002 From: landers at email.unc.edu (Betty) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:16:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Good & Evil/ Dark Mark Message-ID: <3C9A0773.66D93A16@email.unc.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 36800 snip Anna? wrote: > Now compare that to Voldemort-Era Bartemius Crouch, Sr. > He's so sure that he's in the right that he forgets > what's wrong. And that leads to such intemperate > decisions as giving Aurors free license to kill and > prosecuting his own son without a second thought. > Crouch's philosophy is that if you are right, nothing is > wrong. But as with Voldemort, I think we're led to > believe that this way of thinking is, well, wrong. To me, Crouch was right to prosecute his son. Clearly Crouch had some evidence that his son *was* a Death Eater. I don't think he would have prosecuted him without a reason. The biggest mistake, I think, was releasing him from Azkaban. This move ended up getting him killed, and it ended up helping bring back Voldemort. Voldy would have had a hard time getting to Harry without Crouch. Betty, wondering if this post made any sense. From landers at email.unc.edu Thu Mar 21 16:30:21 2002 From: landers at email.unc.edu (Betty) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:30:21 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Dobby a good house elf/short? Message-ID: <3C9A0A9D.E58E6E76@email.unc.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 36801 snippedy snip Kel wrote: If it's true that Winky comes up to Snape's knees, then she must be about a foot and a half or so- three feet tall (a meter or yard) would be about waist height. I'm thinking house elves are between two and three feet. Look in Gof, Ch. 21. When Harry enters the kitchens: "Next second all of the wind had been knocked out of him as the squealing elf hit him hard in the midriff, hugging him so tightly he thought his ribs would break. "D-Dobby?" gasped Harry. "it *is* Dobby, sir, it is!" squealed the voice from somewhere around his navel." How tall's Harry, 4.5 to 5 feet, maybe? Cut that in half and you get two and a half feet, if Harry's 5 feet, just to use a round figure. Maybe females are shorter? A foot and a half to two feet, if we assume Snape is 6 feet. Betty, who is starting already to realize the adictive power of actually posting to this group. -- __________________________________________________________________ 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/ ________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 huntleyl at mssm.org Thu Mar 21 17:07:30 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 12:07:30 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Privit Drive Safety Zone References: Message-ID: <001501c1d0fa$e29e2160$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 36802 Sophia Said: > > There has been a discussion as to the nature of the Safety Zone at Privit > Drive. Did I really miss something, or is it anywhere clearly stated that > Privit Drive was a safety zone from MAGIC? All evidence points to the > contrary, considering all the magic that does take place there. Isn't there > anyone else out there who thinks the safety zone applies exclusively to > Voldemorts power? Well, not really. I don't think the nature of the ancient magic allowed Dumbledore to specific like that -- and, even if it did, why *only* protect against V's power? The real danger, especially right after V's demise, would have been from D.E.'s looking to get at Harry -- either as revenge or a way to bring their master back to power. The D.E.'s power isn't technically V's power, so under your theory, Harry wouldn't be protected from them. This is unacceptable. My primary belief was that no one could do *any* harm to Harry, whether physical or magical, under the restriction of the ancient magic (as long as there was the intent to hurt, Harry would be protected). Then, I realized that the magic couldn't also apply to physical methods of harm, because Dudley and his gang beat up Harry all the time. Which is probably why Arabella was put on his case. Think about it, it's a pretty tedious job -- go live as a muggle for 11 years and watch some scrawny kid. From all accounts, Arabella was a strong fighter in the war against V. She may have even been an Auror. Why send a woman such as this to simply *watch* Harry, unless her job was to fill in the holes in his shield that the ancient magic didn't cover, such as physical attacks. Think about it. Wizards, by all accounts, really have no use for physical assaults once they've learned enough battle magic, but what if one of the old D.E.'s figured out a) Where Harry was b) What kind of magic was protecting him and c) That the magic didn't protect against physical attacks. Unlikely, but possible -- and Dumbledore didn't want to take any chances. So, he sends Arabella from the "old crowd" to watch over him. She's sharp, she's seen her share of gory battles, she knows the signs and techniques of a dark wizard. Perfect. Poor Arabella though. Imagine how boring her life must be now. laura the drugs don't work they just make me worse but i know i'll see your face again From zoehooch at yahoo.com Thu Mar 21 17:21:16 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:21:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] ADMIN: Welcome back to HPforGrownups! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020321172116.28923.qmail@web21210.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36803 Can you fill me in briefly on what happenend? thanks, Zoe Hooch --- johnwaltonvu wrote: > Well, folks, that's a relief. Welcome back to > HPforGrownups. It looks like > everything is in order over here and at the other > lists which were *ahem* out > of order for a day or so. > > A massive thank you to the techies at YahooGroups > who managed to rescue > our groups intact. We all certainly appreciate it. > > So, folks...post away! (As some of you are doing > already!) We might have > some information for you soon -- we're still > investigating the people who did > this...we know who they are, and are considering our > options now. > > Hooray! > > Amy, Catherine, Cindy, John, Kelley, Neil & Penny > The Very Happy HPFGU Moderator Team > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards http://movies.yahoo.com/ From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Mar 21 17:37:32 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 12:37:32 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Shack Flints, Snape's motivation Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36804 IPorphyria: > About Snape taking or not taking Lupin his potion, I wrote: > > > > That makes me think that the potion has to be drunk while it's > > > still hot or while whatever chemical reaction it's doing is still > > going > > > on. So taking it to the Shack wouldn't have worked. > > And Eloise replied: > > > The trouble with this, as someone pointed out once, is that Snape tells > > Lupin, in the scene where we first encounter the wolfsbane potion, that > > he's > > made a whole cauldronful, should Lupin need more. Well, OK, perhaps it > > just > > needs to be *hot*, but surely he could heat it if necessary. Magically > > boiling kettles doesn't seem to be a problem. Or maybe it can't be > > *reheated*, and he's keeping the batch warm in his cauldron, devotedly > > tending it night and day, making sure it doesn't boil dry. You see how > > I'm > > bending over backwards to try and accomodate you? :-) > > Well I really don't want you to hurt yourself over this. Unless you're a > Eloise: Me? Yoga? No, no, got the wrong girl there. I went riding for the first time in two weeks yesterday and if you *knew* how much I ache.....! Porphyria: But I was observing that Snape > made a point of telling Lupin to "drink that directly." And given that > we do know this potion is complicated to made and fragile enough that > the addition of sugar neutralizes its effects, I don't think it's > necessarily a stretch to assume that some elaborate, last-minute thing > has to be done to it to it before it's drinkable, and that it's a > million times easier for Snape to do this in his lab rather than > conjuring up a bunch of supplies on location. A whole cauldronful in > reserve doesn't preclude this; perhaps the last-minute prep is a lot > more complicated than just reheating it. Good point. You win! > > Porphyria: > > > > > > > > > Eloise: > > I'm sorry, but I need help again. What does this mean? Translate, > > please. > > Am I being asked to translate a blank line? I think the missing sentence > had to do with Flints. Flint=minor mistake. Flinty=bedeviled by tiny > plot holes. Forgive me if I've misunderstood your question. Eloise: Well done, got it in one! Where did it go? It wasn't blank when I posted it! Thank you. >> > > Now am I right to think that the difference is this? You suggested that > > Snape's motivations on going to the Shack are ....how do I put > > this.....altruistic - either to prevent Lupin's transformation into a > > dangerous werewolf, or to protect Harry and everyone else from Sirius. > > I on > > the other hand suggested that his reasons are personal, to do with > > wanting to > > catch Lupin and Sirius out of revenge. Is that the core of the problem? Porphyria: > Not exactly. Maybe we should hold off on the Scotch for a bit. :-) My > original post #36596 was arguing against Cindy's claim that the *only* > thing motivating Snape that night was the desire to get Lupin fired. I > began by referencing Amanda's claim that "Nobody over the age of three > has truly single-minded motives." (I actually didn't quote it, but I > should have.) I finished that paragraph by stating "It's a very > complicated set of motives and it's not fair to say he had one and only > one reason to go after Lupin." In the middle I said a whole bunch of the > same things that you go on to say, mainly that he thinks Black is the > one who betrayed the Potters, he's really much more upset about that > than the Prank, and most of all it's hard to separate his vengeful > Eloise: I'm so glad Porphyria > post #36724 I thought you might have been accusing me of being blind > to > his faults, and I don't believe I am. I think I'm admitting to them. Eloise. I'm sorry. I'm not a Real wizard, so I can say that :-).No accusations intended. It was my own fear of having my Snapefan credentials attacked that motivated that, I'm afraid. You see, there does seem to be a strand of Snapefandom that *does* go through contortions to try to justify everything he does and says. I won't do that. We won't do that, I should say. Porphyria: > that post you said "I'm rather afraid that at that point his primary > motivation, his *conscious* motivation, was simply to get his own back > on Lupin, and Sirius too, if possible." > Eloise: Oh flobberworms! I was hoping you wouldn't bring that up. You see, I realised afterwards, when I thought about it, that I was simply *wrong* there. I think his conscious motivation was more likely to be his 'Dumbledore's right hand Man ridding the world of the Evil Black and his lupine accomplice motivation'. At least, that's what he'd tell himself. Porphyria: > completely splitting hairs, but I'd just say that > Snape might be a little too proud to admit that *part* of his primary > motivation is > redoing a traumatic past, and it's much easier for him to take the > attitude "Vengeance is very sweet...How I hoped I would be the one to > catch you..." (I have no fear of their peashooter canons.) Of course > Snape is acting tough here. That's what he does. And of course for him > the personal and altruistic are inextricably linked. I never argued that > his motives were pure, just not all selfish. > Eloise: > > So yes. Assuming that he believed that Lupin was aiding Sirius, Snape > > had a > > lot of reasons for going up to the Shack. I'll agree that they some of > > these > > were entirely honourable and I certainly think that the personal > > motives > > were deep, not just a petty desire for retribution. ther. Are we still > > friends? Porphyria: > I hope so. I'm still eyeing that Scotch. Eloise: Erm...can someone remind me what we were disagreeing about again? > > Marina explains why she thinks Snape is afraid of Lupin: > > > > >Mainly in the scene where Snape brings the potion to Lupin's office > > >while Lupin and Harry are talking. I don't have my copy of PoA handy, > > >so I can't cite it exactly, but I thought Snape's behavior in that > > >scene is rather striking. He seems very tense; he's described as > > >"unsmiling and watchful"; he does not produce a single sneer or > > >sarcastic remark; his eyes dart around the room; and he backs out of > > >the room, which to me implies that he was unwilling to turn his back > > >on Lupin. All of which adds up to make me think that, at the very > > >least, Lupin makes Snape *really* nervous. > Eloise: > > It *is*rather striking, isn't it? Until now, I had put his behaviour > > down to > > his finding Harry with Lupin somewhat putting him off his stride. He's > > probably got a nice string of sarky remarks worked out which he suddenly > > found himself unable to use in front of a student (Sorry, Porphyria. We > > may > > know better, but can't we admit that the Snape JKR portrays quite often > > just > > isn't very nice?). Porphyria: > When did I get to be the one arguing that Snape=Leo Buscaglia? Yeesh! If > only you knew how much I appreciate his sarcasm. Eloise: Sorry, projecting, again. I can identify with sarcasm. Porphyria: > agree with Cindy here, what she wrote in post #36771 > in which she > concludes "The comparison between Snape's conduct with Moody versus > Lupin suggests that Snape isn't the least bit afraid of Lupin, I'd say." > For once I can say Cindy is dead on about Snape. :-) > Eloise: She is, isn't she? Remarkably perspicacious. I don't see any signs of fear anywhere else. > Porphyria: > Yes! We agree! And just to make it > clear, I do agree that a lot of his motivation consists of trying to > redeem himself for his past, to prove himself trustworthy again. It all > . Do you think it's just trying to *redeem* himself? I wonder if it goes back further than any actual wrong-doing. You see, my version of Snape's childhood is almost identical to Catlady's ( msg no 36663), except that I don't envisage him at primary school. (Why bother if you've got the governess?) Parents are such a stong theme in the series. I always envisage him having the kind of father for whom he could never do well enough. No matter that he's top in Potions, no matter that he's on the Slytherin Quidditch team ( it's speculation, before someone objects!), no matter how many OWLS and NEWTS he gets, he never gets the recognition he deserves, let alone wants. So he can either give up trying, or spend the rest of his life looking for that recognition. Just a thought. Now, let's get out that whisky again.... Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From trog at wincom.net Thu Mar 21 15:49:58 2002 From: trog at wincom.net (talondg) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:49:58 -0000 Subject: Still-Life With Memory Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36805 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: Very, very well done. Bravo! [snip] > I think Neville's got one, myself. And I agree with you. Neville's abnormal forgetfullness is hammered home just a little too often for there NOT to be some reason for drawing attention to it. And JKR does not strike me as the type who would fall back to a "muggle" reason for it, like a psychological one. If Neville's forgetfulness is a plot device, not a character detail, then it is almost certainly magical in nature. [snip] > So why *would* Neville have been given a memory charm, anyway? Ahhh... the $20k question.... [snip] > Elirtai mused: > > > The reasons why he got the charm aren't that clear to me - the > > most obvious reason would be to help him get over the trauma of > > the DE attack on his parents. . . . . Except that this doesn't jibe with the Wizarding World's attitude to life in general. They're very elemental, these wizards. No touchy- feely therepy for them! Either suck it up and deal with it, or get on with the business of going mad.... That's not to say Neville wouldn't have been comforted, that people wouldn't have tried to take care of him, that he wouldn't have recieved sympathy and empathy. Wizards may be harsh, but they're not _cruel_. But hiding the trauma from Neville for his own psychic health doesn't seem in character. *Especially* if there are known detrimental side-effects to the Memory Charm.... > And wizards do seem to be, on the whole, a terribly delicate breed, > don't you think? Hmm.. I dunno. I think that they're subjected to very much greater levels of stress and pain than most muggles. The Wizarding life is a very intense one. They do nothing by half-measures. Azkaban in particular strikes me as being the most horrible place imaginable. It would be like slipping into the most brutal, black depression that any person is capable of, and then _staying there_ with no relief _at all_, ever. It's not that they go mad, but rather, that some actually manage to avoid it somehow. [snip] > But what if the memory charm weren't placed on Neville purely for > his *psychological* benefit? Anna suggested that it might have > been some kind of wizarding witness protection scheme: Which witness? What if Snape were involved? He could have been there, involved, undercover, and perhaps his testimony is what sent the torturers to Azkaban. Could Neville's memory charm be there to prevent him from inadvertantly blowing Snape's cover? [snip] > Neville sometimes gives the impression of being simply incapable of > performing magically. Far more often, though, his blunders in > canon are portrayed as powerful but unfocussed, rather than as weak > and ineffective. I agree. Neville's problem seems not to be power, but rather control. That's not suprising. The core of controlling magic appears to be words, technique, and concentration - and Neville's memory is damaged. Not so far gone as the protagonist in "Memento" perhaps, but he'd suffer from similar issues. It must be very difficult for Neville to learn anything. > Kitty suggested that Snape might be deliberately trying to break > through Neville's memory charm by antagonizing and frightening him > in Potions Class. And I don't think that is what is going on. I think Snape just doesn't suffer incompetance very well. Face it - as nice as he is, Neville is disruptive. He's _dangerous_. Teaching a class with Neville in it has to be very frustrating. DG From Kwhateverr2001 at cs.com Thu Mar 21 16:17:20 2002 From: Kwhateverr2001 at cs.com (Kwhateverr2001 at cs.com) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:17:20 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Shack Flints, Snape's motivation Message-ID: <158.adfcbcb.29cb6190@cs.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36806 In a message dated 3/21/02 8:30:54 AM Mountain Standard Time, rusalka at ix.netcom.com writes: > I like to think that soon after PoA there was an off-stage scene where > Snape and Dumbledore sat down and hashed it all out. That would be > where Snape was finally persuaded of Sirius' innocence (clearing the > way for that handshake at the and of GoF), and where Dumbledore > explained that his actions had not been motivated by distrust of > Snape. > I hate to be argumentative in my first post, but I humbly disagree. No way could Dumbledore persuade Snape of Black's innocence, especially so soon after the incident. Snape was still burning from losing the "Order of Merlin" title which would cause him to be much less sympathetic to all concerned. I think he only did the handshake brecause Dumbledore asked him to, and with all the events that had taken place, he probably would have felt very petty had he refused. The handshake was not an admission on Snape's part of Black's innocence, but more of an agreement to disagree for the time being, since they had bigger fish to fry at that point in time. Also out of respect for Harry, grudging thought it may be. ~~Lysa~~ From chynarose8 at hotmail.com Thu Mar 21 16:50:52 2002 From: chynarose8 at hotmail.com (Michelle Strauss) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:50:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Still-Life With Memory Charm Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36807 GulPlum Had wrote: >>I'd go a step further. How's this for an idea? Neville suffers not from a memory *charm*, but a memory *curse*. What I mean by that, is that the trauma of his parents' torture hasn't been wiped from his mind, but on the contrary, has been deliberately embedded in such detail and so inextricably, that every waking moment, he relives the experience over and over and over again. Thus his short-term memory has been shot, his self-confidence is shot, and his whole self-image is damaged. Secondarily, his psyche reasons that if this is what being "powerful" can do to you, he wants no part of it. << I guess that makes sense, but... What do you call something that's kinda both a curse and a charm? A block perhaps? You see, I think that Neville did the memory thing to himself; only he didn't use any magic to do it. The way I figure it, if he ever finds a way to really *deal* with his parents' fate and having (possibly) witnessed it, then his memory would visibly improve. I'm not saying that he conciously forgetts, or that his short term memory's shot, but rather that he has problems recalling memories because his unconcious won't relenquish its hold on his long term memory. He knows its there, he just can't find where it got stored. Simply put, there is an unconcious block stopping (possibly damaging) long term memories from being recalled lest the Trauma be unleashed. Everything that may unleash the Trauma is locked away from his concious mind to prevent this; kind of a mini Fudge if you will. Which is something that sort of furthers my idea of REDEMPTION (Real Evil Depends on Emotional, Mental, and Physical Tourture to Instil Orderly Notions) if you happen to look at it the right way. In this case, the orderly notion would Power belongs fully to Evil and the tourture would be a combination of Emotional and Mental. chynarose _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From jmt59home at aol.com Thu Mar 21 17:35:30 2002 From: jmt59home at aol.com (jtdogberry) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:35:30 -0000 Subject: Still-Life With Memory Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36808 Just my own ideas of who put Neville under the memory charm/curse. It seems to lie in 2 possiblities a) one of thse who tortured his parents or could be incrimated as a DE b) some one close so he would not have to go through life with those memories. if it is the first, then will Neville break out of it and if so, what will happen? The second is a little more complex. It could be one of three things a) His parents to protect him b)The ministry/St Mungo's c) his gran If his parents did tell Neville the information and put him under a memory charm, how would anyone else know that this was the case? But that still doesn't account for when they were actually totured, he would still remember that!! b) would be for "his own good" c) Just a bit of a twist from me here, what if Gran purt them memory charm on Neville as soon as she got to his parents house and said to the ministry that he wasn't there to spare him being questioned. Judging by her belief in family pride, she may have done that so he would not grow up like Harry, famous and potentially bigheaded with the all the fame. But why HIS parents? The most logical reson I can think of is revenge! But was it revenge on the Longbottoms themselves or was it to get back at some one else? I personally think that it is the latter, Frank Longbottom was helping some of the DE spies and had befriended them or his wife could have been related to one and so for revenge of that DE betryal, took revenge on a reletive because it is likly that they would have been protect by the ministry. Reading between the line of what I just wrote, I think that Snape is related to Neville somehow. Possibly Mrs Longbottom could have been his sister or similar, seeing Neville in potions could bring back memories of her and Snape takes the pain out on Neville to stop him from loving him and being hurt again. It's a crazy theory but it might just work!!! As for Neville himself, I think he is frightened of power, both what it can do to another person, and what having it makes you. This is why he holds himself back, he certainly doesn't what to become a DE and he is scared of being a target because he is powerful and seen as a threat. Ok, who's next? Dogberry From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Mar 21 18:26:57 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:26:57 -0000 Subject: Shack Flints, Snape's motivation In-Reply-To: <158.adfcbcb.29cb6190@cs.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36809 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kwhateverr2001 at c... wrote: > I hate to be argumentative in my first post, but I humbly disagree. No > way could Dumbledore persuade Snape of Black's innocence, especially so soon > after the incident. Snape was still burning from losing the "Order of > Merlin" title which would cause him to be much less sympathetic to all > concerned. I think he only did the handshake brecause Dumbledore asked him > to, and with all the events that had taken place, he probably would have felt > very petty had he refused. The handshake was not an admission on Snape's > part of Black's innocence, but more of an agreement to disagree for the time > being, since they had bigger fish to fry at that point in time. Also out of > respect for Harry, grudging thought it may be. Nope, afraid I can't by that one. At the time the handshake took place, Voldemort has come back to power, the Minister of Magic has his fingers stuck in his ears going "don't tell me about, I can't hear you, la-la-la," and Dumbledore is preparing for war. In that situation, there's no way Snape would've agreed to work with Sirius if he thought there was any chance in hell that Sirius was guilty. Dumbledore is including Sirius in his inner circle, trusting him with names and plans and access to Harry and all sorts of other top-secret stuff. If Sirius is guilty, if he's really the traitorous, mass-murdering, Voldemort-supporting scum that Snape used to think him, then Dumbledore is making a huge and deadly mistake, a mistake that could lose the war for the good guys before it has even properly started. Countless lives, including Snape's own, are depending on Sirius being absolutely trustworthy. Under such circumstances you don't just "agree to disagree." Now, there's certainly room for debate on exactly *when* Snape's conversion took place. But take place it must have, or else there would've been no room for handshakes and talk of cooperation. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Mar 21 18:26:07 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:26:07 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Shack Flints, Snape's motivation Message-ID: <129.e70314c.29cb7fbf@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36810 In a message dated 21/03/02 15:30:57 GMT Standard Time, rusalka at ix.netcom.com writes: > I think you're right. (This is, of course, in no way incompatible > with my theory about Snape's fear of Lupin. Gotta love all those > layers.) In particular, I think Snape wants recognition from > Dumbledore. Which is why he falls apart so badly when Dumbledore > takes HRH's side -- not only taking their word over Snape's, but > aiding and abetting their efforts to help Black escape, and then > standing there twinkling when Snape confronts them with what they both > know is true. > > I like to think that soon after PoA there was an off-stage scene where > Snape and Dumbledore sat down and hashed it all out. That would be > where Snape was finally persuaded of Sirius' innocence (clearing the > way for that handshake at the and of GoF), and where Dumbledore > explained that his actions had not been motivated by distrust of > Snape. > I should have added this to my reply to Porphyria, had I read it in time. Yes. Of course this taking of HRH's side painfully echos the way Dumbledore took the Marauders' side (from Snape's POV) after the Prank. My original speculation (going back to my musings about his childhood in my last post) was that he was seeking a father-figure in the big D, his own having let him down by never showing him any approval. I'm glad there are other people apround who seem to have similar views. I'm still suffering from the reactions I got when I postulated such ideas when I first joined and got several rebuttals, not realising in those days that silence does not always mean dissent. Lysa disagrees with Marina over her off-stage scene: >I hate to be argumentative in my first post, but I humbly disagree. No >way could Dumbledore persuade Snape of Black's innocence, especially so soon >after the incident. Snape was still burning from losing the "Order of >Merlin" title which would cause him to be much less sympathetic to all >concerned. I think he only did the handshake brecause Dumbledore asked him >to, and with all the events that had taken place, he probably would have felt >very petty had he refused. The handshake was not an admission on Snape's >part of Black's innocence, but more of an agreement to disagree for the time >being, since they had bigger fish to fry at that point in time. Also out of >respect for Harry, grudging thought it may be. Well, I don't think he could have persuaded him *too* soon after the incident. I'm sure Severus had to go off and have a sulk over some particularly complex potion and take a few more nocturnal perambulations to simmer down and get things in perspective before Dumbledore could approach him. But the handshake was a *year* later. You don't need to apologise for being argumentative, though. Many of us are tarred with that brush round here. So argue away. We'll just argue back. Especially Snapefans. And Snape haters. And people who concoct elaborate theories about memory charms. And people who like to accuse all and sundry of being DEs. And people who disapprove of subversive readings of canon and... Is there anyone on this list who isn't argumentative? Marina: I hope I don't alienate myself from the other Snapefans too much with this theory, but I have this strong suspicion that the 16-year-old Severus did not acquit himself at all well when faced with a snarling werewolf in a narrow tunnel. He was not Tough. He screamed like a girl and went wobbly in the knees and forgot all those vaunted Dark Hexes he's been so famous for since he was eleven. In short, he panicked, and to make it worse, he was *seen* panicking -- by James at the very least, and possibly by other Marauders and a few teachers too. How much more humiliating can you get? Eloise. I hadn't thought of that. I'm not sure what I think, but you're not alienating me. Do you realise what we're doing? Letting them all see that we're even more hopelessly Big SnapeFans than they ever realised, because we're not just foolishly blind to Severus' faults, but take them on board, even revel in them on occasion. Severus, warts and all. Well, not warts, we've got enough other physical shortcomings to deal with. I don't mind glossing over *those*! Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu Mar 21 18:53:20 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:53:20 -0000 Subject: Still Life and Memory Charms Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36811 Believe it or not, I was just putting the final touch on a groundbreaking Memory charm essay, when the computer crashed. It touched on every facet of the Memory charm issue, adressing most every comment that has been made in this discussion, and organizing them. Then, Netscape crashed. I blame it exclusively on Porphyria, more on that later. Therefore, I must regretfully pass by all the interesting aspects of this discussion that other people have picked up on. I will leave speculations about the future of MATCHINGARMCHAIR to Cindy, and I will praise Tabouli's post only in passing, saying that she may be absolutely right in the end. I also hereby pay tribute to Dicentra's perfect explanation of the Memory theme in Harry Potter. No, I must keep to Elkins and Porphyria, who have got themselves up to an astounding amount of dark mischief. The soft, sappy, well meant, anti-traumatic Memory Charm This is what's always kept me away from the Memory charm, but Elkins makes a brave case for it before moving on to more meatier theories: >Given all of that, it wouldn't really surprise me all that much >if the immediate wizarding response to a distressed toddler who >might have been witness to his parents' torture had been: "Oh, no! >He'll be raving mad for sure! And then we'll *never* be able to >fix him! He might even decide to Turn To The Dark Side! So quick > -- give that kid a memory charm, before it's too late!" But, this wouldn't happen in a warrior culture, would it? Let's reimagine the story in Livian Rome: that delightful place where you honoured for killing your sister because she cried for her dead fiance whom you killed, and people went around sticking their hands in fires to prove that they were incapable of "cracking." It's not a bad way to look at things, since the wizarding world is rather like Livian Rome with a disturbing taste of Homeric Greece. Nevillus's pater was a great Roman general, who bravely defended the Eternal City against the Volscians and company. However, one day he is ambushed by some distinctly treacherous Volscians who kill him. Therefore, Nevillus is brought up by his grandmater, a Roman matron in every sense of the word. Does grandmater put a memory charm on little Nevillus to make him forget? Not if she, or those around her, are true Romans. Instead, they are more likely to emphasize that it is up to Nevillus to wipe out this blot on the honour of the Lombotommi, to emphasize the past for his benefit. Does this scenario fit what we see in the books? Yes. I wouldn't be surprised if Gran and the rest of the clan desperately want Neville to be an auror. That's how it works in the Potterverse. Remember Draco Malfoy telling Harry that he'd want personal revenge on Black if he were in Harry's shoes? Leaving things to the police, as it were, seems to be a moral failure in the wizarding world. Taking Neville every year to see his parents? "Will you let this wrong stay unrighted? Will you forget what has been done to us?" And, personally, I don't think Neville very much wants to fulfil his destiny. He tries to supress his magic because he wants that as an excuse for not becoming the avenging son. Elkins wrote: >So just what is it about Professor Snape -- ex-DE Snape, Snape who >is proud and vengeful and combatative, and who is obsessed with duty >and honor, Snape who looks like the very archetype of a Powerful >Sorceror, Snape who is the Head of House Slytherin, Snape who >appears in boggart form looking as if he may well be reaching for >his wand (even though he teaches a wandless subject), Snape in >whose class Neville keeps melting down his cauldrons, Snape who >is *onto* Neville and obviously doesn't believe this "I'm just >nearly a Squib" act for a second... >What does this man represent to Neville Longbottom? Just what *is* >it about Snape that scares Neville so very much? "Proud" "vengeful" "obsessed with duty and honour" "*onto* to Neville" Porphyria writes: >Elkins points out all the ways in which Neville seems to lack >wizarding pride and refuses to take part in the obligation to grow >up big and strong and avenge his wronged parents. He goes out of >his way to make it look (and perhaps make himself believe) >that he's incapable of doing so. Snape OTOH is the very epitome >of exactly what Neville is trying to avoid being himself. Is >that what scares him? That Snape could be an image his fully >actualized self? And Snape has the gall to realize this? Eileen nods her head. Elkins again: >> Maybe the image of Snape in Gran's clothing symbolizes more that we >> first suspected... >Oooooooh, yes. I'm firmly of the belief that it does. Under this scheme, Gran and Snape are firmly united. They are the ghost of Hamlet's father in this mixed-up rendition of the immortal play. But is the rest silence, or will this story end differently? Will Neville keep to his own way, or will his father's ghost send him to kill Claudius? And what will JKR's attitude towards Neville's choice be? Elkins, are you afraid that JKR plans to have Neville cry, "From now on, let all my thoughts be bloody! Or nothing worth!" To fall into line with the warrior culture which he has resisted so far? If so, I now begin to see why you think JKR isn't on your side, or my side either. There is hope, however. Rowling has said that one of the students, but not one of the trio, will become a teacher at the end of the series. I think that would be a perfect ending for Neville. Still, all occasions do inform against us. Porphyria has an even worse theory about murder, murder most foul, as in the best it is, but this most foul, strange, and unnatural >Hmmm. Maybe I'm way misinterpreting you here, but are you >suggesting that one might not have to go so far from the >Longbottom home to find an accessory to his parents torture? The murderous DE grandmother: a little more than kin and less than kind. >And I'd have to answer that the deadly problem within the >immediate family is a theme that keeps coming up over and over, >isn't it? Yes, yes, it is. Things rank and gross in nature..... >Neville's memories would be traumatic, if he could access them. >There's the chance that if he can then we'll discover some >unspeakable scandal, far worse than corruption in the MOM which >we already know about. Agreed. We already know that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. If Neville snaps out of the charm and yells, "Corrupt Cover-up," no-one will bat an eye. We have a right to expect something that will shake us up, like the moment Snape turns on Harry about James Potter or Dumbledore's "Severus Snape was a Death Eater." Even if Gran did not torture the Longbottoms, did someone trade exact rectitude for a beter result, under the illusion that there's nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so? Does that person now muse to himself. Then I'll look up; My fault is past. But, O, what form of prayer Can serve my turn? 'Forgive me my foul murder'? That cannot be; since I am still possess'd Of those effects for which I did the murder, My crown, mine own ambition and my queen. May one be pardon'd and retain the offence? >But Neville will manage to deal with it acceptably in the end. >The Hat did put him in Gryffindor, after all. :-) For he was likely, had he been put on, To have proved most royally: >If the series in general revolves around Harry accepting his >legacy as a Potter, then maybe Neville is there to demonstrate >the refusal to accept a legacy, and just exactly why legacies >are such a dangerous and threatening things to have. Oh, I hope so. But, my prophetic soul warns otherwise. There's just too many similarities to Hamlet. Eileen, who had suddenly connected Porphyria's "sordid secret theory" with the nick and gone in search of the following poem, which represents Browning at his most sordid and splendid, when Netscape crashed. The rain set early in to-night, The sullen wind was soon awake, It tore the elm-tops down for spite, And did it's worst to vex the lake: I listened with heart fit to break. When glided in Porphyria; straight She shut the cold out and the storm, And kneeled and made the cheerless grate Blaze up, and all the cottage warm; Which done, she rose, and from her form Withdrew the dripping cloak and shawl, And laid her soiled gloves by , untied Her hat and let the damp hair fall, And, last, she sat down by my side And called me. When no voice replied, She put my arm around her waist, And made her smooth white shoulder bare, And all her yellow hair displaced, And, stooping, made my cheek lie there, And spread, o'er all, her yellow hair, Murmuring how she loved me-she Too weak, for all her heart's endeavor, And give herself to me forever. But passion sometimes would prevail, Nor could to-night's gay feast restrain A sudden thought of one so pale For love of her, and all in vain: So, she was come through wind and rain. be sure I looked up at her eyes happy and proud; at last I knew Porphyria worshipped me: surprise Made my heart swell, and still it grew While I debated what to do. That moment she was mine, mine, fair, Perfectly pure and good: I found A thing to do, and all her hair In one long yellow string I wound Three times her little throat around, And strangled her. No pain felt she; I am quite sure she felt no pain. As a shut bud that holds a bee, I warily oped her lids: again Laughed the blue eyes without a stain. And I untightened next the tress About her neck; her cheek once more Blushed bright beneath my burning kiss: I propped her head up as before, Only, this time my shoulder bore Her head, which droops upon it still: The smiling rosy little head, So glad it has it's utmost will, That all it scorned at once is fled, And I, its love, am gained instead! Porphyria's lover: she guessed not how Her darling one wish would be heard. And thus we sit together now, And all night long we have not stirred, And yet God has not said a word! From bonnie at niche-associates.com Thu Mar 21 19:07:51 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:07:51 -0000 Subject: Odd parallels and FEATHERBOAS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36812 Many apologies to those who have already seen this message on digests and e-mail and such, but it never showed up on Webview. I found it in the pending posts so I am reposting it. ----- Original Message ----- From: dicentra_spectabilis_alba To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:08 AM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Odd parallels and FEATHERBOAS --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > David wrote: > > >As I remember > > it, Snape believed that Lupin was helping (the escaped criminal) > > Black, and was following with the aim chiefly of catching Black and > > secondarily of proving Lupin's guilt. It wasn't about getting > >Lupin > > fired at that point. > > Amanda agreed: > > >And regardless of his primary motivation > > (to catch Sirius and prove Lupin's complicity), Snape was *also* > >trying to > > get (at the very least) Harry out of the situation. > Cindy ponders: > Hmmm. This is kind of interesting to ponder. > > The sequence of events is that Snape, knowing that Lupin has failed > to take his potion and is going to transform, goes to Lupin's office > with the potion. At this point, Snape's motives are clear -- he is > trying to prevent Lupin from transforming ["into a into a hideous, snarling, dangerous, wizard-killing, fully-formed werewolf"]. > > What doesn't make sense to me is why Snape leaves the castle at all > if he's not going to bring the potion? Snape doesn't know there is a > cloak available, he doesn't know the trio is out at night, he doesn't > know about Black. Snape has to believe Lupin is going to the Shack > to transform because there's no foundation at all for Snape to > believe anything else. Dicentra interjects: Unless he put two and two together as only Snape can. Cindy continues: Indeed, if Snape believes Black is in the > Shack, then one would think he'd let Black and Lupin have a little > reunion there in the Shack so Black can be torn to ribbons by a > werewolf. I think Snape would gladly trade Order of Merlin for that > scenario. > > I've managed to thoroughly confuse myself, I think. I don't see why > Snape would risk tangling with a werewolf to apprehend a criminal > Snape has no reason to believe is even in the Shack. I think I've > talked myself into believing that there's no basis to think that > Snape leaves the castle to apprehend Black or save the Trio or > prevent Lupin from transforming. This whole scene is starting to > feel kind of FLINT-y to me now. > > Tough Dicentra wrote: > > >I had always assumed that he put the cloak on for > > eavesdropping purposes, but at the mouth of the Whomping Willow, he > > didn't know there was anything to eavesdrop on (although he may have > > thought Lupin was going to meet Sirius). He must have been afraid > of > > running into a werewolf again and therefore went into the situation > > invisible. Saved by James again, Severus. What do you think about > > that, ya oily git? > > As much as I bow down to you because of your enthusiastic insults > toward Snape, I'm not sure I'm on board here. Dicentra waves a white flag: All right already! I give! Uncle! Uncle! Snape wouldn't put on the cloak to protect himself from a werewolf because the werewolf would be able to smell him and also he's a fully formed wizard capable of tangling with such a beast and upon finding the cloak he would deduce that Harry was involved (he always knows Harry's involved) and so maybe he went to the shack not to save Harry but to get him expelled. AND get Lupin fired. AND apprehend Sirius. *sigh* It's just that the idea of the cloak-as-James's-proxy saving Snape was too good to pass up, even if it is so easily refuted. Who knows? The scene is a bit FLINT-y, but I think JKR is relying on the already established convention that Snape Turns Up At The Worst Possible Time. From Harry's perspective, that is. Snape's only motive may be... well... that he's Snape, and that's what Snape does. > Cindy attempts to save Dicentra's bacon: > So maybe the relevant parallel is that Snape is fulfilling the James > role and is preparing to pull Harry out of the tunnel so Harry > doesn't meet a fully-grown werewolf. Oooh, would that erase Snape's > life debt to James? Yes, I like this bit because then Snape's motive > isn't *really* to save Harry's life. Snape's motives instead are > self-serving -- he wants to get the Life-Debt-To-James monkey off of > his back. Snape as self-serving is good, very good. > Dicentra breathes a sigh of relief: THERE we go! Parallel. Now the universe makes sense again. > Dicentra again, in the distant past: > > >We don't really know why Sirius hates Snape so > > much, nor do we know what provoked him into sending Snape down the > > tunnel in the first place. Cindy jumps up and down, waving her arms: > > Trapezoid! Florence! Trapezoid! Florence! > Dicentra again, in the past: > > > And I'm not necessarily talking about CUPID'S BLUDGER or any of > those > > other Cock-Eyed Yet Entertaining theories. > Cindy innocently asks: Cock-Eyed? You mean Cock-Eyed in the sense of being completely canon- > based and spot-on? Dicentra innocently responds: Yes, that's exactly what I meant. > > Dicentra in the past (on the Dumbledore/McGonagall/Snape trio): > > >Could that mean that Ron will indeed go bad then come back as > > a spy, unbeknownst to us, the anguishing readers? > > > > Nah. It means that Snape and Ron will both die. And FWIW, I think > Ron will pre-decease Snape. Sorry. > > ************ > > Eileen wrote: > > > But, bloody ambush appreciation can co-exist with SYCOPHANTism. > It's > > the Avery thing again. Avery who is both sickened and attracted by > > violence. > > > Sure, FEATHERBOAS can co-exist with SYCOPHANTism. Just barely, > perhaps. But I must admit I have no idea how one can wear a > FEATHERBOA and have this pity for evil underlings thing going on. > > I mean, in our many ambush scenarios, people are getting *killed*. > Wilkes dies (although not in an ambush because Elkins said I couldn't > kill him in an ambush). Rosier dies. They probaby had a lot to live > for, too, and they valued their own evil little lives as much as > Pettigrew values his. Yet Rosier died at the hands of Moody, and > Eileen and Elkins are bouncing on the sofa. What's the difference > between Pettigrew and Rosier? And if you're mourning Rosier, why did > you rejoice in his ambush in the first place? Hmmmmm? > > Cindy (who doesn't know why she is challenging Elkins and Eileen > about their FEATHERBOA credentials because if they both surrender > their credentials, she will be a rather lonely FEATHERBOA) Dicentra reminds Cindy of something: I seem to recall being offered a key-lime-green FEATHERBOA. Did I refuse it? No! I might be curled up in the fetal position on the deck of the Fourth Man hovercraft, but I'm really not such bad company if you don't mind conversing while lying on your stomach. --Dicentra, whose RL hovercraft trip from Calais to Dover nearly made her hurl From christi0469 at hotmail.com Thu Mar 21 19:08:50 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:08:50 -0000 Subject: Shack Flints, Snape's motivation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36813 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kwhateverr2001 at c... wrote: > > > I hate to be argumentative in my first post, but I humbly > disagree. No > > way could Dumbledore persuade Snape of Black's innocence, especially > so soon > > after the incident. Snape was still burning from losing the "Order > of > > Merlin" title which would cause him to be much less sympathetic to > all > > concerned. I think he only did the handshake brecause Dumbledore > asked him > > to, and with all the events that had taken place, he probably would > have felt > > very petty had he refused. The handshake was not an admission on > Snape's > > part of Black's innocence, but more of an agreement to disagree for > the time > > being, since they had bigger fish to fry at that point in time. > Also out of > > respect for Harry, grudging thought it may be. Marina write, > Nope, afraid I can't by that one. At the time the handshake took > place, Voldemort has come back to power, the Minister of Magic has his > fingers stuck in his ears going "don't tell me about, I can't hear > you, la-la-la," and Dumbledore is preparing for war. In that > situation, there's no way Snape would've agreed to work with Sirius if > he thought there was any chance in hell that Sirius was guilty. > Dumbledore is including Sirius in his inner circle, trusting him with > names and plans and access to Harry and all sorts of other top- secret > stuff. If Sirius is guilty, if he's really the traitorous, > mass-murdering, Voldemort-supporting scum that Snape used to think > him, then Dumbledore is making a huge and deadly mistake, a mistake > that could lose the war for the good guys before it has even properly > started. Countless lives, including Snape's own, are depending on > Sirius being absolutely trustworthy. Under such circumstances you > don't just "agree to disagree." > > Now, there's certainly room for debate on exactly *when* Snape's > conversion took place. But take place it must have, or else there > would've been no room for handshakes and talk of cooperation. I have to agree that it is unlikely that Snape still thinks Sirius is guilty. Face it, Snape must be about as trusting as the real Mad- Eye Moody. To me it seems much more likely that Snape puts two and two together (as only he can) after hearing Crouch Jr's veritaserum testimony. Crouch Jr. says that Voldemort showed up at his house with Wormtail. Last year during the Shrieking Shack fiasco Snape overheard that Peter Pettigrew went by the nickname ofWormtail. If Peter Pettigrew is alive, Sirius could not have murdered him (rather obvious, but there you go). And if Peter is with Voldemort, it makes it likely that he was the one who betrayed the Potter's. Snape might want to believe that Sirius is guilty, but with the stakes being so high now he really does not have the luxury. I wonder how much of what Snape believes about Harry will be called into question. Snape seems to believe Harry's testimony in the infirmary. The fact that Voldemort is back is independently confirmed by Snape's Dark Mark. Will this make Snape take Harry more seriously? Christi From catlady at wicca.net Thu Mar 21 20:45:36 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 20:45:36 -0000 Subject: Dragons / Trelawney / Memory Charm / Snape / Crouch / Longbottom Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36814 finwitch wrote: > Does one need to kill a dragon in order to get it's heart-string > for a wand, BTW? I think so. And I think dragons must be killed to get their hides for all those dragon-hide gloves and boots we see in canon, and the dragon liver at the Diagon Alley apothecary during Harry's first shopping trip. In the Potterverse, they're just animals. Big, dangerous animals. Tabouli wrote: > I've always imagined [Trelawney] as late forties or so, old enough > to have a face written with lines of mystic wisdom, but young > enough to retain a mass of untidy dark curls, IE, the same age as McGonagall in the books, whose hair is still black. "Her black hair was drawn into a tight bun" when Harry was left on the Dursley doorstep. "A tall, black-haired witch in emerald-green robes stood there" at the beginning of Sorting Hat chapter. JKR's illo: http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/hpforgrownups/vwp?.dir=/Harry+Pot ter+%26+Me&.src=gr&.dnm=dursleysdoorstep.jpg&.view=t&.done=http%3a//ph otos.groups.yahoo.com/group/hpforgrownups/lst%3f%26.dir=/Harry%2bPotte r%2b%2526%2bMe%26.src=gr%26.view=t Personally, I envisioned Trelawney with gray hair... > You know, despite the ever-proliferating flotillas roaming Theory > Bay, I have yet to witness a ship which rustles up some romance > for the slender, sultry Sibyll. I don't think she ever had a romance, but I do think she's heterosexual and desperate. I think she's pursuing Lupin in PoA: when she came to Christmas Dinner, almost the first thing she said was, "But where is dear Professor Lupin?" and I said "She only came in search of him". Then she said: "He positively fled when I offered to crystal gaze for him --" and I said: "He fled because he perceived that she was just seeking an excuse to get him alone and grope him." > [Memory Charms] Have an effect which wears off within a few hours > at most (hence Mr Roberts needed to be re-Charmed several times > each day) I think not: the Muggles, and Lockhart's victims, don't need to be re-Charmed. I had immediately assumed that Mr Roberts needed to be Charmed (not re-Charmed) several times each day because he needed to be Charmed for EACH incident in which careless wizards made him suspicious. It just now occurred to me that it would have been more practical for the MoM co-ordinators to have knocked the Robertses unconscious for the duration of the event & run the campground Themselves -- okay, I'm not sure how they would give them a false memory to explain the lost weekend, so send the Robertses on an all-expenses-paid, magically-winning weekend in Las Vegas & run the campground Themselves, cleaning it up afterwards so that the Roberts don't know that there were Tons of Trepassers. Eloise wrote: > My original speculation (going back to my musings about his > childhood in my last post) was that [Snape] was seeking a > father-figure in the big D, his own having let him down by never > showing him any approval. Agreed. In addition, there have been theories of Snape joining the Death Eaters out of anger at Dumbledore siding with the Marauders or out of despair at losing a girlfriend to a Gryffindor, but I think he was led into Death Eating by his quest for approval from people who just happened to be DEs, if not actually having fastened on a DE as his attempted father-figure. I imagine Severus's parents as having shown him very little attention at all, almost as little disapproval as approval. They just found him and his entire existence a total bore. Therefore, the primary school serves as the source of spontaneous vicious cruelty directed at him, thus explaining the sarcasm and vengefulness and uncontrollably strong emotions. Marina Rusalka wrote: > I hope I don't alienate myself from the other Snapefans too much > with this theory, but I have this strong suspicion that the > 16-year-old Severus did not acquit himself at all well when faced > with a snarling werewolf in a narrow tunnel. He was not Tough. He > screamed like a girl and went wobbly in the knees and forgot all > those vaunted Dark Hexes he's been so famous for since he was > eleven. In short, he panicked, and to make it worse, he was *seen* > panicking -- In my own view of the Potterverse, 16-year-old Severus feels as humiliated and as resentful of the humiliation as in your theory, but all he did to be ashamed of was that he (finally!) ran away, leaving Potter behind him, between him and the onrushing werewolf (which is what Potter had urgently been ordering him to do and he kept refusing until the monster was actually approaching). Upon exiting the Whomping Willow, he *suddenly realises* that *he* Ran Away, leaving Potter as diversion for the monster, while *Potter* has died at the teeth of a werewolf to save him! The knowledge that Potter will be viewed as a hero and memorialized at Hogwarts while he is considered a coward bites at him much more urgently than any later thought of life-debt, and causes him to run for help (!) to his Head of House or Headmaster. When he discovers that Potter was Perfectly Safe as an Animagus (note: not Perfectly Safe, considering the werewolf/Padfoot fight in PoA), he is totally convinced that Potter and Black set this up On Purpose to make him run away like a coward. He could believe that Lupin was in on That Plan, as in it, Lupin was not in any danger of biting him (and being sent to Azkaban, or whatever the punishment is for a werewolf who bites a wizard). Betty wrote: > To me, Crouch was right to prosecute his son. (snip). The biggest > mistake, I think, was releasing him from Azkaban. Yes, I think this is a trick that JKR played on us. Sirius and the Pensieve told us things that made us think Jr was an innocent boy railroaded by Sr, that Sr was cruel to imprison his own son, that Sr's strict merciless adherence to the rule of Law was itself an Error... but Jr WAS guilty, Sr WAS right to imprison him, Sr's Error was his merciful violation of Law i.e. helping Jr escape from Azkaban. Eileen Lucky Kari wrote: > more likely to emphasize that it is up to Nevillus to wipe out > this blot on the honour of the Lombotommi Agreed with essay, ed at Romanization, noticed that Lombotommi looked at first like Lobotomi... From editor at texas.net Thu Mar 21 20:51:06 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:51:06 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Still-Life With Memory Charm References: Message-ID: <005301c1d11a$2008ff60$9a7763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36815 I am truly sorry if this has been mentioned, really. But I've been waiting until I get time enough to do justice to the Still Life post, and haven't really followed all the Neville threads. But something struck me, when someone posted an analysis of how memory charms seem to affect people. One of the examples was Neville, just coming out of the classroom after Moody held him back. Neville is clumsy and forgetful, but not dopey; this is distinctly odd. So---->Has anyone suggested (as I am), that Crouch/Moody was the perpetrator of the crime against the Longbottoms, that he saw Neville's reaction to his class, and held Neville back to reinforce the memory charm that he himself cast, years ago? Neville is loopy in the hall because he's *just* had a memory charm cast on him. Whatcha think? Am I repeating someone? --Amanda From editor at texas.net Thu Mar 21 20:53:29 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:53:29 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dobby height References: Message-ID: <006001c1d11a$7558e700$9a7763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36816 Betsy said: > I am 4'11 and I mesasured my knee length and it came to 15 inches. I > know this is going to sound crazy, but one of the guys that I work > with is 6'3" so I measured his knee length. From the ground to the > top of his knees is 2 feet. So I figure that we must all be on the > right track. Winky is behind Snape and looks around from behind his > knees. I would venture to guess that this experiment leads me to > believe that they are between 2 feet and 2'6" tall. Thanks to all > for your help I hereby nominate Betsy for introductory L.O.O.N. membership, for her attention to detail, taking her to the point of measuring the body parts of unsuspecting co-workers. Bravo! --Amanda, B.S., L.O.O.N. From editor at texas.net Thu Mar 21 21:13:20 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:13:20 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Shack Flints, Snape's motivation References: Message-ID: <00c001c1d11d$3af24fe0$9a7763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36817 > Porphyria: > But I was observing that Snape > > made a point of telling Lupin to "drink that directly." And given that > > we do know this potion is complicated to made and fragile enough that > > the addition of sugar neutralizes its effects, I don't think it's > > necessarily a stretch to assume that some elaborate, last-minute thing > > has to be done to it to it before it's drinkable, and that it's a > > million times easier for Snape to do this in his lab rather than > > conjuring up a bunch of supplies on location. A whole cauldronful in > > reserve doesn't preclude this; perhaps the last-minute prep is a lot > > more complicated than just reheating it. > > Good point. You win! Or it could be like Polyjuice, which evidently can be cooked up to a point and then left to simmer. There's definite steps to get it "ready" for a portion of whoever you're turning into, but it can apparently stay at the "ready" stage for quite a while. Reasoning: --It only lasts an hour (the effects); Crouch would need fresh batches rather a lot. --The real Moody was kept alive for the harvesting of hair periodically (and it must have been periodically, or Crouch would just have killed him after he brewed up X gallons of polyjuice, or simply kept his hair) ---Snape's office was only broken into once for boomslang skin. So Crouch probably brewed up a cauldronful, to the "ready" point, and then scooped some out and adds Moody hair to make the active potion every so often. Since it is implied that this is how Polyjuice works, I have no problem thinking that the Wolfsbane potion can be brought to 95%, and left simmering, until the final ingredient is added, whereupon it must be drunk while smoking. --Amanda From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Mar 21 21:17:07 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:17:07 -0000 Subject: Is Dobby a good house elf/short? In-Reply-To: <15F4D924.16C4A975.B13B89B9@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36818 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., kellybroughton at n... wrote: > Well.... I wonder. If Dobby truly *is* the Malfoys' house-elf, theirs alone and always will be, WHY then would he make the effort to go to Harry on his own initiative(?) and try to keep Harry from going back to Hogwarts in order to save Harry? In other words, why would Dobby *care* whether Harry goes back or not? Dobby makes it quite clear that the Malfoys don't even know what he's doing, and if they ever find out, they'll put him in a serious hurt.(Refer to Cos, page 14.) I am of the mind that there's something going on to make Dobby go against his nature (being a "good house-elf") that forces him to make such a bold action. _Could the reason possibly be that, by going to Harry without the Malfoys' knowledge and/or permission, that Dobby actually IS being a "good house-elf"?_ > > Just something to ponder. > -kel Whatever gave you the idea that Dobby is a good house-elf? He's probably the worst house-elf ever, mainly because there is something appart from air or fluff between his ears. Let me explain this further: Dobby is a very strange elf, as we all know. He expects to be payed, for one thing, and actually LIKES being free. Whatever his reasons may be, they nevertheless imply that he has thought long and hard about his condition, both before and after his liberation from the Malfoy family. He has reflected on how he was treated and concluded he disliked it, and prefered striking out on his own. Normally, an elf's reaction would be the traditional "whatever the problem is, it's my fault" which is the one Winky takes on every occasion. This second option is the easiest for an elf because it needs no thinking, but Dobby refuses to take it, thus making him very bad at the job of slave (one of the curses of intelligence). On a side note, ANY slave that thinks too much is normally a bad servant, since nature has evolved all creatures to try and survive both the other species and his own, and intelligent beings tend to resent being placed in inferior positions. If one thinks too much about their position, one tends to develop a resentment that is normally vented by any one of many forms of rebellion (sloppy work, theft, scape, etc.). There are, of course, servants that like their job, and that can be good at it even if intelligent, but that's for another reason: no matter how bad the job may be, how denigrant or badly paid, if you like it you're probably going to stick with it (see Julia Robert's "My best friend's wedding" for an example of this in the man's job as sport reporter). In conclussion: Dobby was a very bad slave, and helped Harry as a form of rebellion against his owners (choosing Harry because he had insider's information on which to work and beacuase, being intelligent, he knew Harry was the one to help). Once liberated, however, he discovers freedom and the horrible danger it brings with it: boredom. thus, he looks for a job, and finds out that, being free, he enjoys what he had been doing all along, except for the slave part, so he gets a job at being a servant but where he doesn't have to put up with being ultimately faithful to his employer. To understand this, think: Would Dobby feel any remorse about telling Harry secrets of Hogwarts (location of rooms, secret passages, etc)? I think not, because Dumbledore it's not his master, just his employer, and there is a radical difference between them. That difference, however is what makes Dobby a bad house-elf, and a very good ally in case of need (and Harry's going to need all the help he can get, as we all know, specially help from the amazing powers elves command in HPverse). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf PD: All this post is based on the idea that a good house-elf is the one that is faithful to his master. If Hermiones pro-elf freedom campaign ever wins out, this definition would change, and the new one would probably fit Dobby like a glove. However, I firmly believe that, for most elves, being liberated would be against their wishes and would be extremely traumatic, and hope they don't have to pass through it. From editor at texas.net Thu Mar 21 21:15:53 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:15:53 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DEs recognising one another? (was Re: Who's Afraid Of The References: Message-ID: <00c501c1d11d$96381880$9a7763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36819 Naama said, about whether the DEs could recognize each other via the Dark mark: > No. Voldemort would never allow a mechanism that would enable one DE > to recognise another. Remember we're talking about a secret > organisation - for one member to potentially be able to point out ALL > other members means that one traitor can bring down the whole > organisation. > At the graveyard scence, we saw how Voldemort used the mark - as a > means to call his followers to his side. I don't remember his exact > words, but I did get the impression that he is the only one who can > make use of the mark. "Every Death Eater had the sign burned into him by the Dark Lord. It was a means of distinguishing one another, and his means of summoning us to him." (GoF, p. 710 [US]) Snape is the speaker, but I think he is a trustworthy source on this particular subject. --Amanda From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Mar 21 21:20:47 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:20:47 -0000 Subject: Dragons / Trelawney / Memory Charm / Snape / Crouch / Longbottom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36820 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > The knowledge that Potter will be viewed as a hero and memorialized > at Hogwarts while he is considered a coward bites at him much more > urgently than any later thought of life-debt, and causes him to run > for help (!) to his Head of House or Headmaster. When he discovers > that Potter was Perfectly Safe as an Animagus (note: not Perfectly > Safe, considering the werewolf/Padfoot fight in PoA), he is totally > convinced that Potter and Black set this up On Purpose to make him > run away like a coward. He could believe that Lupin was in on That > Plan, as in it, Lupin was not in any danger of biting him (and being > sent to Azkaban, or whatever the punishment is for a werewolf who > bites a wizard). It's an interesting theory, but I don't think James got revealed as an Animagus at the time of the Prank. Snape certainly didn't know that Sirius or Peter were Animagi, so I figure he didn't know about James either. If he had known, he would've certainly mentioned it to Dumbledore when he was trying to convince him that all the Marauders were in on the Prank; and Lupin says Dumbledore never found out about them. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From editor at texas.net Thu Mar 21 21:22:25 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:22:25 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: Dragons / Trelawney / Memory Charm / Snape / Crouch / Longbottom References: Message-ID: <00ee01c1d11e$7ff87d20$9a7763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36821 Rita wrote: > In my own view of the Potterverse, 16-year-old Severus feels as > humiliated and as resentful of the humiliation as in your theory, but > all he did to be ashamed of was that he (finally!) ran away, leaving > Potter behind him, between him and the onrushing werewolf (which is > what Potter had urgently been ordering him to do and he kept refusing > until the monster was actually approaching). Upon exiting the > Whomping Willow, he *suddenly realises* that *he* Ran Away, leaving > Potter as diversion for the monster, while *Potter* has died at the > teeth of a werewolf to save him! > > The knowledge that Potter will be viewed as a hero and memorialized > at Hogwarts while he is considered a coward bites at him much more > urgently than any later thought of life-debt, and causes him to run > for help (!) to his Head of House or Headmaster. When he discovers > that Potter was Perfectly Safe as an Animagus (note: not Perfectly > Safe, considering the werewolf/Padfoot fight in PoA), he is totally > convinced that Potter and Black set this up On Purpose to make him > run away like a coward. Have we any canon evidence at all that Snape had any idea at all that James et al were animagi? Have we any canon evidence that he did not? I personally thought he only discovered they were animagi in the Shrieking Shack scene, one of the only new bits of knowledge he did overhear. --Amanda, curious From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Mar 21 21:28:45 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:28:45 -0000 Subject: Privit Drive Safety Zone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36822 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sophia mclaughlin" wrote: > > There has been a discussion as to the nature of the Safety Zone at Privit= > Drive. Did I really miss something, or is it anywhere clearly stated that= > Privit Drive was a safety zone from MAGIC? All evidence points to the > contrary, considering all the magic that does take place there. Isn't the= re > anyone else out there who thinks the safety zone applies exclusively to > Voldemort?s power? > > Sophia There is actually no canon to support the idea of a Safety Zone at all except for Dumbledore's typical cryptic statements of Harry having to go to live to his uncle's house for his protection. >From then on, the members of this board (myself included) have gone on to weave theories about this protection and how it's brought about. I for one believe that most of the protection is some sort of mild Fidelius mantained by Mrs. Arabella Figg (she would be the secret keeper), but unfortunatelly this has great holes in it: we have no knoledge of this "mild Fidelius", and it cannot be the normal one since any number of people are able to find the house (unless the fidelius is directed at pecific individuals, which I find highly unlikely). Another possibility is that Mrs. Figg is a very powerfull DADA professional and if Voldemort, in his debilitated state had come to pay a visit, she would have "prodded serious buttock" (in words of Terry Pratchett). This has also a big hole: V is not debilitated anymore, and Harry has gone, nontheless, to privit drive for the summer once more at the end of book 4. Thus the situation stands. For other theories, search the archives (I will not explain other people's theories for fear of getting them wrong) Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From uncmark at yahoo.com Thu Mar 21 21:39:47 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:39:47 -0000 Subject: Privit Drive Safety Zone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36823 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sophia mclaughlin" wrote: > > There has been a discussion as to the nature of the Safety Zone at Privit Drive. Did I really miss something, or is it anywhere clearly stated that Privit Drive was a safety zone from MAGIC? All evidence points to the contrary, considering all the magic that does take place there. Isn't there anyone else out there who thinks the safety zone applies exclusively to Voldemort?s power? > According to Voldemort himself in GoF, he could not attack Harry at the Dursley's "Dumbledore invoked an ancient magic to ensure the boy's protection as long as he is in his relations care." GofF Ch. 33. Also despite the Weasley's wanting to take Harry all summer. Dumbledore wants him home on Privit Drive. I think this must have something to do with the mysterious Arabella Figg. JKR has admitted in interviews that she is the same Mrs. Figg that babysat Harry growing up (memntioned in SSt). Also in GofF Harry notes that 'there was no creature visible on Privit Drive, not even a cat'. I wouldn't be surprised if Figg's cats were her familiars and kept watch over Harry. I think the 'safe zone' of ancient magic must be more than just magic harm. In Piers Anthony's Xanth series, there was a magician who was immune to magic harm, therefore to harm him you merely had to avid spells and attack physically. What would stop Voldemort from merely hiring muggle criminals to attack Harry? In PofA. Sirius Black did not come up to Privit Drive, but was waiting for Harry several blocks away.He meant Harry no harm. Why couldn't the stray walk up to Harry? Uncmark From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com Thu Mar 21 21:51:24 2002 From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:51:24 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Still-Life With Memory Charm Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36824 >From: "talondg" >Could Neville's memory charm be there to prevent him from >inadvertantly blowing Snape's cover? I don't know if I'm the first to suggest this or not, but my gut instinct on this one is that Snape may have been the one to Memory Charm li'l Neville, but he did it for humanitarian reasons rather than to cover his own tracks. It would explain the strange relationship between them, and might explain why he's so negative towards Neville: He was unable to save the Longbottom's from Crucio-induced insanity, just like he failed to save the Potters from Lord Voldemort; Neville is a daily reminder, much as Harry is, of his failed attempt to be 'the hero.' J _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Thu Mar 21 22:24:25 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:24:25 -0000 Subject: Still-Life With Memory Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36825 Elkins wrote on memory charms: <) Information about corruption within the Ministry also seems possible. But neither of these really satisfy me somehow. So does anyone else have some other possibility they would like to suggest?>> And Porphyria wrote: <> Now me: I'm going to try and give an answer to Elkins' question by commenting on the Neville/Harry parallel Porphyria outlined. First, I believe there was a lot more going on Halloween, 1981, than we know about now. All we have to go on really are Harry's incomplete memories and the rantings of an Evil Overlord I figure we are being led to assumptions that will one day be blown wide open, in a quite Bangy way. If you buy any of that, can I interest you in a parallel with the Longbottom torture? ________________________________________________________________ The Canon (GOF, p. 595): (Crouch Sr speaking) "We have heard the evidence against you. The four of you stand accused of capturing an Auror?Frank Longbottom?and subjecting him to the Cruciatus Curse, believing him to have knowledge of the present whereabouts of your exiled master, He-Who- Must-Not-Be_Named_" "Father, I didn't!" shrieked the boy in chains below ________________________________________________________________ What if more was going on there than meets the eye as well? Something *shockingly* different from what is presented as evidence at the trial/sentencing/whatever-you-call-it. How about?Frank L. is really a bad guy. Evil as they come. Knows *exactly* where Voldemort is floating around. But his sweet innocent wife has no idea about all this, until she overhears Frank & the gang of 4 plotting. She goes all hysterical and someone slaps an insanity curse on her. Someone (Dead Sexy Mrs. Lestrange, anyone?) decides that Frank is now a liability and can't be trusted. He gets an insanity curse, Neville gets a memory charm, the gang gets the heck out of there. (This can come with an added bonus of an innocent-of- torture-Crouch Jr if you'd like!) Too out-there for you? Ok, maybe so. But I *do* really think there is a Neville/Harry backstory parallel going on, as Porphyria said. And I think both will be quite Bangy --with Harry's the Bangiest of course! Caroline (Hey, it's not any more out-there than Toadkeeper, is it?) From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com Thu Mar 21 22:30:41 2002 From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:30:41 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Privet Drive Safety Zone Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36826 All these ideas about the protection afforded for Harry at number four, Privet Drive really had me stumped. I guess that I'd always assumed that much like "music...a magic beyond all we do here..." (SS, US Paperback, p. 128) and "...love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark." (ibid, p. 299), Dumbledore had simply harnessed some ancient magic inherent in *family*, and in being in the custody and protection thereof. It's not, well, terribly Bangy, lacking any mulitple interwoven layers of warding spells or mysterious DADA professionals masquerading as decrepit old ladies, but it does provide us with some sort of answer... J _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Mar 21 22:35:52 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:35:52 EST Subject: Polyjuice workings/Snape's reaction to Prank)( was: Shack Flints/Dragons/Trelaw) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36827 Amanda: > Or it could be like Polyjuice, which evidently can be cooked up to a point > and then left to simmer. There's definite steps to get it "ready" for a > portion of whoever you're turning into, but it can apparently stay at the > "ready" stage for quite a while. Reasoning: > --It only lasts an hour (the effects); Crouch would need fresh batches > rather a lot. > --The real Moody was kept alive for the harvesting of hair periodically (and > it must have been periodically, or Crouch would just have killed him after > Eloise: Which brings me back to the problems I always have with Mrs Crouch. How on earth did a dying woman manage that? It's hard enough to believe that she actually managed to drink some within an hour of death, without adding problems of preparation. Catlady: > In my own view of the Potterverse, 16-year-old Severus feels as > humiliated and as resentful of the humiliation as in your [Marina's] > theory, but > all he did to be ashamed of was that he (finally!) ran away, leaving > Potter behind him, between him and the onrushing werewolf (which is > what Potter had urgently been ordering him to do and he kept refusing > until the monster was actually approaching). Upon exiting the > Whomping Willow, he *suddenly realises* that *he* Ran Away, leaving > Potter as diversion for the monster, while *Potter* has died at the > Eloise I like this version! I think he would be very ashamed of running away. Even more ashamed that he had let himself be tricked, but very ashamed of running away, nevertheless. I prefer it to Marina's vision of his turning into a quivering lump of jelly. Catlady: > The knowledge that Potter will be viewed as a hero and memorialized > at Hogwarts while he is considered a coward bites at him much more > urgently than any later thought of life-debt, and causes him to run > for help (!) to his Head of House or Headmaster. When he discovers > that Potter was Perfectly Safe as an Animagus (note: not Perfectly > Safe, considering the werewolf/Padfoot fight in PoA), he is totally > convinced that Potter and Black set this up On Purpose to make him > run away like a coward. He could believe that Lupin was in on That > Plan, as in it, Lupin was not in any danger of biting him (and being > sent to Azkaban, or whatever the punishment is for a werewolf who > . Eloise I'm not sure of your time scale here. Snape doesn't discover that they're animagi until he hears the conversation in the Shrieking Shack - yes? Yet when Harry suggests that the reason Snape has never liked Lupin is because he thought he was in on the joke, Snape decloaks and agrees, the implication being that he always thought that, despite not knowing they were animagi. I suppose Snape often does know or suspect more than he lets on, but I really do think that if he had known, he would have told Dumbledore to be on the lookout for a big, black dog. On the other hand, I suppose it is conceivable that at some point he discovered James' secret, but not the others'. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From saintbacchus at yahoo.com Thu Mar 21 23:21:19 2002 From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:21:19 -0000 Subject: Good/Evil, the Dark Mark, Privet protection, Snape the teacher Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36828 For the moment, I'm lurking on the subject of Neville. My mind was boggled by that essay! Betty opines: << To me, Crouch was right to prosecute his son. Clearly Crouch had some evidence that his son *was* a Death Eater. I don't think he would have prosecuted him without a reason. The biggest mistake, I think, was releasing him from Azkaban. This move ended up getting him killed, and it ended up helping bring back Voldemort. Voldy would have had a hard time getting to Harry without Crouch. >> Apparently, all he has is the testimony of Frank and ...uh, "Mrs." Longbottom, who are both insane. I'm all for fairness and avoiding favoritism, but doesn't it strike you as odd that he takes the word of the crazy Longbottoms over that of his own son? Later, he has a crisis of conscience (I don't buy Junior's explanation that his father loved his mother more than him). He could have avoided the whole debacle by thinking things through in the first place - and realizing that while prosecuting his son was probably right, there was wrong in it too. Which brings me to Eloise, who writes: << I think he did evil things in the past, but that the evil he now embodies is the evil of lack of consciousness, of an unwillingness to be aware. In fact I think Dark and Light are much more useful concepts. The Light side, being in the light, can see things more clearly, including their own faults. The Dark side walk in ethical blindness. >> Mmm, I agree. Well said. The only thing I have to add is that I think all the characters (except Voldemort) can see "good," or at least think they can. It's the absence of the balancing force of evil that causes problems. Crouch is the best example of this, as he seems to think that as long as your motives are good, so is everything else you do. After all, if evil doesn't exist - or exists only in "them" - how could *I* be evil? It's much harder to accept the existence of evil than the existence of good, because accepting evil means accepting that it exists in yourself. Uff da! Now who's being Biblical? ^_~ And about the Dark Mark, Eloise writes: << But this contradicts what Snape himself tells us: 'It was a means of distinguishing each other , and his means of summoning us to him.' (GoF 606). >> It does, and isn't it strange that Karkaroff and Snape should give different accounts of how DEs identify one another? By definition, they were both part of Voldemort's elite inner circle, so apparently he trusted them both. Or did Voldemort perhaps *know* that Snape was a spy? I also wonder why the MoM couldn't use the Mark to distinguish the Death Eaters. Did it just disappear when he did? Good design, V! J postulates: << I guess that I'd always assumed that much like "music...a magic beyond all we do here..." (SS, US Paperback, p. 128) and "...love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark." (ibid, p. 299), Dumbledore had simply harnessed some ancient magic inherent in *family*, and in being in the custody and protection thereof. >> That's what I was thinking, but more vaguely...because put this way, it kind of suggests that the best way to get to Harry would be to kill Aunt Petunia and Dudley. Eek! In fact, what's keeping Voldemort, or anyone else, from killing the Dursleys? Something or someone must also be protecting them - maybe it's a two-way protection? That would explain why the Dursleys keep Harry around, at least. Finwitch writes: << In Essays, not public - and supposedly not very personal, but about the essay. >> I suppose I should have mentioned it the first time, but she was just as much of a wise-ass in front of the class as on my papers, and her comments could get personal. She had no time for people not as smart as her, basically. << Contrasting to Snape: calling someone "idiot" on an error and losing temper is not helping anyone to learn anything but reluctance to try. >> Again, I disagree, but only because you claim that Snape's method of teaching is useful to no one. Hermione will learn with or without Snape, and I've already said I see Harry as being more sure of himself because of Snape. Maybe I'd think differently if I were in that class (and bad at it), but I don't see Snape as doing any lasting damage to kids who weren't damaged to begin with. --Anna Testing new formatting...hope it isn't too ugly or unreadable! From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu Mar 21 23:30:26 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:30:26 -0000 Subject: Still-Life With Memory Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36829 OK, everybody gather around me. Squeeze in close now so you can hear. Can everyone see? Good. If you will look over to your left, you will see that you are standing before one of the most impressive works of Still Life in the museum's collection. Go on, have a good look, but please don't touch. And no flash photography, please. One of the interesting things about this piece is that not much is known about the artist. She normally doesn't work in this medium, preferring spray paint in lurid colors. I understand that she has quite a flair for seashells, but most of her work has involved ocean scenes. And feathers. Lots of feathers. I see a hand in the back. You have a question, Mr. Malfoy? No, no, no Mr. Malfoy. You cannot buy this one, either. It is *not* for sale. Please stop asking me that. Yes, Mr. Pettigrew? Good heavens! Oh, I see. Uh, well, I'm not sure how to answer that, because, well, no one has ever asked about it before, to tell you the truth. Um, well, I've heard she is a rather sensitive and fragile artist, but no, she hasn't actually severed any body parts, so far as we know. *********** Still Life With Memory Charm. There's just so much good stuff here that it's hard to know where to begin. Maybe I can quickly weigh in on a few random points and throw out a Big and Bangy wild new theory. Elkins: > But as to the Memory Charm Theory itself, I wouldn't say that I > consider it "obvious." It did occur to me as a possibility when I > read GoF for the first time, and upon second reading, as I observed > in a more analytical fashion the specific things that had *led* me >to > consider it, I did indeed find myself suspecting that the author > might have deliberately designed the text to draw the reader to >this > conclusion. Hmmm. I've repeatedly insulted Memory Charm Neville by calling him Obvious. I guess I should clarify. I didn't mean that he would be obvious to someone on a first read. If truth be told, I never considered the possibility until, um, the alert folks on this board pointed it out. I think what I mean is that Memory Charm Neville as he is generally depicted on the list might be too obvious *for JKR*. In other words, it might not fit with the way JKR has handled foreshadowing and misdirection in the books so far. Or, at least, it is something worth analyzing, I think. At this point, let me just offer up a disclaimer. Literary analysis of foreshadowing is hardly my long suit. However, Luke wrote a dynamite analysis of foreshadowing (focusing on the Grim) a few months back (Message 25,463). It inspired what I'm about to say, so don't for a minute think I came up with all of it. And if I am about to misconstrue what Luke wrote, I apologize in advance. There are several examples of foreshadowing of big plot twists in the series, of course. They include the Grim, the Time Turner, Pettigrew as Scabbers, and Fake Moody. There are others, but I'll just look at these. With the Grim, JKR introduces the concept of the Grim early on in PoA and keeps coming back to it. Characters debate its meaning, and there's nothing subtle about how the Grim is handled. It is right in our faces. But the Sirius-as-dog-as-Grim plot twist depends on the introduction of animagi, which is done subtly. We are told that McGonagall is an animagus, and that is the extent of it. So JKR plays up the mystery (the Grim), and underplays the actual mechanism of the plot twist (animagi). With the Time Turner, JKR gives us the clues and story questions of how Hermione is getting to her classes -- indeed, the reader is beaten with them. We know something is going on, but we have no idea that it is time travel. The Time Turner is never mentioned at all until Hermione reveals it at the end. In this case, JKR plays up the mystery, but doesn't reveal the actual mechanism of the plot twist (the Time Turner) until the last moment. With Pettigrew, JKR does nothing more than introduce the fact that Scabbers exists. She gives a few dry facts about him (his finger, his longevity), but she doesn't have Scabbers do much out of the ordinary until he is revealed to be Pettigrew. So JKR underplays the mystery related to Scabbers, and as we saw with the Grim, she also underplays the actual mechanism of the plot twist (animagi). With polyjuiced Fake Moody, JKR gives an unimportant scene in CoS (Harry and Ron using polyjuice potion), which never factors into the books again until it is the cornerstone of the Fake Moody plot twist. There were a few story questions raised about Fake Moody, but again JKR underplayed the actual mechanism of the plot twist (polyjuice potion). And now we come to Neville. Elkins: > I do, however, find it highly suggestive that to date every single > one of the novels has drawn the reader's attention to the use and/or > abuse of memory charms. Yes, there is a lot of talk about memory charms, which is kind of odd when you think about it. I mean, we have a fantasy tale about a boy wizard, yet this memory charm business is coming up. Over and over and over we hear talk about memory charms, but we never see one become really pivotal in a big plot twist. Oh, sure, there's the Lockhart bit. I'm no CoS expert, but I think that story would have worked if Lockhart had not blasted himself with a memory charm. It was an interesting touch, but hardly pivotal, IIRC. Like Elkins (and most others, I suspect), I think that *something* is going on with the memory charms. Memory charms are getting more foreshadowing throughout the series than polyjuice potion, animagi and the Grim ever did. Memory charms clues are being treated like the Time Turner clues, really, as far as how frequently JKR uses them. It makes me wonder if we are going to see something Huge come at us from left field at a pivotal moment -- like the Time Turner. So I don't see how we are going to get a plot line that says simply "Neville has a memory charm, and he becomes a capable wizard when the charm wears off or is broken." Perhaps Neville will have a charm of some sort, and when he overcomes it, he will recall something Big (or for the Reverse Memory Charm believers) or find the courage to act on something Big. More on that below. Elkins asked (musing about possible Memory Charm revelations): > So does anyone else > have some other possibility they would like to suggest? ::raises hand:: Oooh! Oooh! Pick me! Pick me! Moody. It just plain *has* to have something to do with Moody. It just *has* to. JKR has said Moody will be in Book 5 and will be even more cool, or words to that effect. Isn't it possible that Real Moody is ? geez, I can't even bring myself to say it ? Supremely Evil To The Core? Good heavens, wouldn't it be *dreadful* if Moody, Dumbledore's old trusted friend, is a wicked DE and kills Dumbledore in OoP, fooling Dumbledore and the reader not once but twice? Elkins, what's happening? They're all *laughing* at me. Oh, I know what they're thinking. Good Heavens Woman, they are all muttering, how could Moody be a dark wizard, for cryin' out loud? The *whole plot* of GoF doesn't make sense if Moody is a DE, they howl. Voldemort hatches a plan to kidnap Moody and assume his identity, and Voldemort wouldn't do that if Moody was a DE, everyone wails. Not even Voldemort is so dumb that he doesn't know who is on his own team, everyone shrieks. Well, hold it down so I can explain. 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. Rookwood, from the Department of Mysteries, has decided to launch a little deep cover side operation unbeknownst to Voldemort. He recruits Moody to be a DE, and Moody continues his auror function, but is really working for Voldemort. Canon? Oh, loads of it, and this is where the fun starts. What does JKR have Moody do when Karkaroff fingers Rookwood in the Pensieve? Nothing. Not a word. Not a glare. Not a gasp. 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 ? that Moody just won't shut up in the Pensieve scene. He reacts to Karkaroff, Dolohov, Rosier, Bagman, Snape. It is not until Karkaroff fingers Rookwood that Moody suddenly goes quiet. And look at Moody's dialogue. 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? Yet Moody is unbelievably hostile to Karkaroff's efforts. And get this: when Karkaroff mentions that the DEs don't know each other, Moody says, "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? Also, Moody's double-agent role is why 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 is better, you see. He had to kill Rosier because Rosier was . . . well, crazy, you see. Rosier didn't get the memo about surrendering, going to Azkaban and claiming Imperius. Rosier was playing the hero, so Moody had no choice. And no wild theory would be complete without a nod to the Snapefans. Snape is intimidated by Moody. That is because Snape is getting a weird vibe from Moody. Snape trusts his instincts about Lupin and Black. But Moody? Snape's sixth sense tells him something is wrong about Moody. Something dangerously wrong. Now, how am I going to tie this into the memory charm thing? Well, Neville *saw* Moody do something the night Neville's parents were tortured. Something that would blow Moody's cover if it came to light. It might not necessarily be Big. Maybe just some evidence destruction or some such. I'm not sure. But whatever Neville sees Moody do, Moody has a Big problem now. He can't kill Neville, because it would be too weird for the perpetrators to kill the toddler and leave the parents alive. Also, Moody is worried that killing Neville will cause MoM to do an investigation, and Moody would hate for Neville's shadow to come crawling out of Moody's wand. So Moody does a ::gulp:: Memory Charm. And a big one, too, much bigger than is really needed. Moody isn't taking any chances. Mrs. Lestrange and her crew are apprehended, with Moody tracking them down. Moody tries to bring Mrs. Lestrange in, and she didn't get the memo, either. Or she got the memo, and figures there is no way she is ever claiming she did anything because of some namby pamby Imperius curse. Mrs. Lestrange is Proud and Tough. As I've said before, Mrs. Lestrange costs Moody his eye and leg before she is apprehended. Time passes, and Moody figures he is a lucky man (except for the leg and eye part). He gets to be a famous auror and live a quiet retirement, and hardly anyone knows he was a secret DE. Except Rookwood who is in Azkaban, and Rookwood isn't talking. Or is he? Moody doesn't know what Rookwood is mumbling about in his sleep. This makes Moody more than a little bit jumpy and paranoid. He never knows if the next knock on the door is the pizza delivery man or a disgruntled psycho DE bearing a grudge against DEs who got off. So in GoF, we have Voldemort, Pettigrew and Crouch Jr. overpowering Real Moody, not knowing that he is a DE. Savor the irony there! 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?" It just never comes up. Eh, so does that work? Elkins: >Tell > me, memory charm fans: what do *you* see as the narrative function of > this plotline? What do you imagine its thematic purpose to be? What > do you perceive as the thematic relevance of issues of memory, > remembrance, and the past to the story as a whole? Come again? Uh, maybe I had better go read everyone else's thoughts on this and get back to you on that bit. :-) ********* All right, everyone. We've been here long enough. We need to give others a chance. The hovercraft will meet us at the dock in just a few minutes, and the Captain doesn't wish to be kept waiting. Come right this way. Yes, Mr. Avery? Don't mumble, man, speak up. I can't hear a word you're saying. Did everyone catch that? Mr. Avery wants to know about that sculpture in the corner. Oh, yes. I've heard of this. It's called ToadKeeper, and it is the work of some obscure local artist. It's quite unusual, really. It appears to be full of holes, which you don't see very often in the better pieces. No, Mr. Avery, just leave it there, trust me. It looks even worse when your bring it out into the light. It's on loan to the museum, but the truth is that no one really wants it. I think I'll speak to the curator about donating it to the local scrap yard. ********* Cindy From ruben at satec.es Thu Mar 21 21:01:12 2002 From: ruben at satec.es (elirtai) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:01:12 -0000 Subject: DEs recognising one another? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36830 Naama wrote: > Voldemort would never allow a mechanism that would enable one DE > to recognise another. Remember we're talking about a secret > organisation - for one member to potentially be able to point out ALL > other members means that one traitor can bring down the whole > organisation. I mostly agree with that. And think how they all are "hooded and masked" when they answer the summons... but shortly after that, Voldemort calls them all by their names. (GoF chapter 33, "The Death Eaters"). Does that mean they already knew, rather than just suspected about each other? Or is Voldemort changing the modus operandi in his second rise to power? Elirtai From jmt59home at aol.com Thu Mar 21 22:42:15 2002 From: jmt59home at aol.com (jtdogberry) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:42:15 -0000 Subject: Still-Life With Memory Charm In-Reply-To: <005301c1d11a$2008ff60$9a7763d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36831 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda" wrote: > One of the examples was Neville, just coming out of the classroom after > Moody held him back. Neville is clumsy and forgetful, but not dopey; this is > distinctly odd. So---->Has anyone suggested (as I am), that Crouch/Moody was > the perpetrator of the crime against the Longbottoms, that he saw Neville's > reaction to his class, and held Neville back to reinforce the memory charm > that he himself cast, years ago? Neville is loopy in the hall because he's > *just* had a memory charm cast on him. That makes a lot of sense because the camp owner (from the quidditch match)was also very doppy after he had a strong memory charm on him. Although it was before he went into Moody's office that Neville was doopy, but on saying that, he was gone for the entire lunch break, giving Crouch JNR plenty of time to enforce the charm from long ago, which may explain why Neville was up that night, he was trying to connect to what happened earlier on with past. One very Confused Dogberry From tabouli at unite.com.au Fri Mar 22 00:59:53 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:59:53 +1100 Subject: Memory Charms: For discrete events Message-ID: <00a201c1d13d$0598e140$6f2bdccb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 36832 Catlady (quoting me): > > [Memory Charms] Have an effect which wears off within a few hours > >at most (hence Mr Roberts needed to be re-Charmed several times > >each day) > >I think not: the Muggles, and Lockhart's victims, don't need to be re-Charmed. I had immediately assumed that Mr Roberts needed to be Charmed (not re-Charmed) several times each day because he needed to be Charmed for EACH incident in which careless wizards made him suspicious.< Oops, you're right, hang on, let me rephrase that... OK. So Mr Roberts had to be charmed again and again, every time he noticed something that made him suspicious. A series of discrete, mostly unconnected events to be forgotten, right? One encounter with foreigners bearing huge gold coins, one hanging upside down in the air incident, etc.etc. Then there's the dragon event in Fantastic Beasts. Isolated sighting of dragon in Muggle's memory... Obliviate! End of problem. Muggle remembers sitting on beach, does not remember dragon, goes about life as if dragon never happened. Compare this with the Longbottoms incident. This is no singular, discrete encounter. This is an event with lifelong repercussions which *cannot* be wiped out. So. Neville witnesses his parents being tortured into madness, it traumatises him. Obliviate! The memory is gone. However, the effects of the event he witnessed are crashing all around him. Suddenly, his parents aren't around any more. Um, it's not something he's going to miss, is it? Aurors swarm around his family, fishing for clues to find the culprits. He is sent to live with his grandmother, who, along with all his relatives, is extremely upset. Sure, they'll try to protect Neville (aged 3-4 at most), but, well, he's going to be traumatised anyway, isn't he? Also, at some stage, Neville's relatives obviously told him what happened and started taking to see their gibbering bodies in St Mungos. Um, not a great way to keep it out of his mind. Therefore the only purpose of the Memory Charm is to *reduce* the trauma suffered. Take away the first-hand eyewitness trauma, but leave the second-hand aftermath trauma untouched (unless they're going to keep on Charming him to wipe that too). There is no way Neville is going to go about his life as if the event never happened. What I'm saying is that this particular event is not isolated and short term in its effects but inextricably connected with the rest of Neville's life, and therefore not very suited to a Memory Charm for altruistic, psychological purposes. A Memory Charm to conceal the identity of the perpetrators would make more sense, because then the fact that Neville sees the aftermath isn't a problem... he can't remember the *actual* event, and hence can't point the finger. This is where Cindy's Reverse Memory Charm comes in. At the trial, they had to use "the Longbottoms" (in a bad condition, says Dumbledore) to identify the culprits. Was Neville included? Perhaps when no sense could be gotten from his parents, they had to break the Memory Charm on Neville. This can be done, because Voldemort did it to Bertha (using torture). *Hence* he now remembers the incident, and *hence* his memory is bad because it's, well, occupied with horrible things most of the time. (To her alarm, Tabouli finds herself looking at a nice, comfy MATCHING ARMCHAIR...) Hmmm... now that raises another possibility... were the Lestranges and co torturing the Longbottoms to try to break a Memory Charm on *them*? Perhaps they knew where Voldemort had fled, and Dumbledore or someone obliviated their memory of this so they *couldn't* give it away. I dunno. I'm just not convinced that many people *really* get tortured to death without spilling the beans. I'm with Elkins there... it's amazing what people will do when being exposed to extreme pain. Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skelkins at attbi.com Fri Mar 22 01:05:42 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 01:05:42 -0000 Subject: Dark Mark and DEs (was:DE Name Origin, & some Dark Mark) In-Reply-To: <18d.4c96339.29c1eaf1@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36833 Eloise, Porphyria, and Amanda were having a really fascinating conversation last week about Dark Marks, DEs, scars, and a whole lot of great Snapestuff. I was particularly sorry to miss out on it because I would very much have liked to direct people to an old message of Porphyria's, #35386, on the subject of scars: Harry's, Snape's, and how the two might relate to one another thematically as well as plot-wise. A lot of that material did get revised in the course of the discussion, but I still wanted to weigh in to recommend that people go back and read the second half of message #35386 (the subject heading is "Serpensortia -- Scars"), because I thought that it was terrific, and it did sort of get lost in the shuffle back when it was originally posted. ----- At one point in the course of the discussion, Eloise wrote: > This 'How visible is the Dark Mark?' thing is a bit puzzling. I'm sorry to jump into this conversation so late -- I've been very busy this week, and am now desperately playing catch-up -- but as I see that this has been revised lately, I'm figured it's okay. A lot of ground has already been covered here, but it seems to me that there's still some discomfort over the fact of the visibility of the Dark Marks during GoF. As I see it, the dilemma as it stands goes something like this: The marks have been invisible since Voldemort's fall. They have been gradually reappearing, growing more and more clearly visible, as Voldemort himself approaches full reincorporation. When he finally gets around to actually *summoning* his DEs, which he does somehow by using Wormtail's mark, they not only burn, but also show up very clearly indeed -- Snape not only shows Fudge his mark, but also tells him that it was even more clear earlier that evening, when it "burned." Right? So the temptation, certainly, is to view the marks' appearance as intrinsically and visibly tied to Voldemort's state of being, and thus to assume that before his fall, they were always visible. This, however, raises questions about DE secrecy: wouldn't it be awfully easy for Aurors to identify Death Eaters, if they all bore visible brands of their allegiance? Wouldn't the Ministry know about them by now, given that Dumbledore had all those spies in Voldemort's camp, and given that people like Karkaroff spilled their guts to get themselves released from prison? Wouldn't it have become common knowledge by now that the Death Eaters had been marked in such a fashion? Wouldn't Sirius have known what to make of it, when Harry told him about Karkaroff showing Snape something "on his left arm," rather than being simply bewildered? So perhaps they weren't always visible after all. Perhaps their means of serving as a form of "identification" among Death Eaters was some more subtle form of magical sympathy: they burn, perhaps, or tingle when you are in the presence of a fellow DE, or perhaps somehow you just *know.* Or possibly there is a magical trigger which can be activated by the mark's bearer to *make* it visible, thus enabling it to serve as a means of identification to other DEs, but only when its bearer wants to use it for that purpose. But of course, that leads right back into the question of why the marks should all have started to reappear during the year in which GoF takes place, and why Karkaroff's frantic attempts to talk to Snape about the Mark should focus so heavily on its visual appearance (Karkaroff does not, for example, say anything about suddenly being able to *feel* the thing again; instead, he tries to *show* it to Snape and speaks exclusively about how it appears visually). Is this an accurate representation of the dilemma as it stands? I've been trying to keep up, but I could have missed something, so apologies in advance if I've left out anyone's ideas. Okay. Now my own theory about the visibility of the Dark Marks over the course of GoF is that the reason that they begin reappearing in visible form is because Voldemort himself has been *willing* them to do so. I don't think that they're always visible. As others have pointed out, this would have been an idiotic way to mark the members of ones organization, especially as we know that some of them (Rookwood, for example) were working deeply undercover. I also don't believe for a moment that it wouldn't have become common knowledge that DEs were marked in this way at some point after Voldemort's fall, if not before. But I do think that Voldemort can make them appear in visible form, if he so chooses, much as he can use them to summon the DEs to his side. The marks themselves, like the people bearing them, are intrinsically bound to him. The status of the marks is subject to his will. I also suspect that they have always manifested visibly when they "burn" -- in other words, when they are used to summon one or more of their bearers to apparate instantly to Voldemort's side. This is never explicitly stated, but it seems suggested to me both by Snape's comment about his own mark showing up less clearly now than it did when it burned and by Karkaroff's utter panic at the thing's growing visibility. My feeling about this is that in GoF, Voldemort is willing the Dark Marks to reappear in visible form because he *wants* the DEs to know that he's coming. With the exception of a very few loyalists, they all betrayed and abandoned him; while he was languishing in his strange neither-dead-nor-alive nether-state for thirteen years, weak and helpless, they all just went back to their nice cushy lives. Most of them were probably secretly relieved to be free of him in the first place, very few of them are going to be truly happy to see him back, and he knows it. And that *infuriates* him. He is going to forgive most of them for it -- because really, what other choice does he have? He needs followers, and disloyal though the DEs may be, they're still the only one's he's got -- but he wants to make them suffer agonies of trepidation first. I think that the instant that Voldemort had gobbled down enough of that snake venom and unicorn blood and whatever other nasty concoctions he was using to build up his strength throughout most of GoF, he started focusing his will on making the Dark Marks reappear. He wanted his DEs to know that he was on the mend. He wanted them to know that he was coming back. And he wanted them to have a good long time to think about just what that might mean for them. He wanted them to be really *sweating* it. And it works -- although I suspect not quite as well as Voldemort had hoped. He still has to twist the knife around a bit in the graveyard before he manages to get someone to react with the kind of abject grovelling terror that I suspect he'd been hoping to inspire. But when he finally does get there, he's just tickled. I mean, look at his reaction to Avery's crisis of nerves in the graveyard. He's absolutely *delighted!* So that's my suggestion as to why the Dark Marks are reappearing in visible form throughout GoF. It also explains why they start to fade away after the graveyard convocation. Voldemort stops paying attention to them after graveyard. The DEs all know for sure that he's back now, so he can stop concentrating on that. I suspect that by the end of the school term, they'd vanished from normal sight completely. Eloise wrote: > But I find it curious that Voldy examines Wormtail's arm for his > ('It has come back') in the graveyard, when Snape's and Karkaroff's > have been visible for some time. My interpretation here is that by "It has come back" Voldemort meant: "It has now come back *completely.*" In other words, now that he is fully reincorporated, his will has become strong enough to bring the dark mark back to *full* visibility, which means that it will also be strong enough to summon the DEs to his side. I don't think that he could have summoned them in his slimy baby form even if he had wanted to. In that body, he was just far too weak. ----- As to the question of how the dark marks normally served as a means of identification among DEs, though, I find the notion that it wasn't necessarily visual at all, but instead tactile or some form of more mystical recognition believable. I also find it perfectly likely that it *was* visual, but normally under the conscious control of those bearing the mark, thus allowing one to "show" the mark to others when this seemed called for, while ordinarily keeping it safely hidden. This of course would do little to ameliorate the friendly fire problem that Eloise suggested, but it would at least help in preventing infiltration. Tingling would indeed work better, but I don't know that I believe that Voldemort and the DEs were necessarily all that canny. Porphyria wrote: > If the Mark didn't tingle then there'd be a lot of potential for a > Good Guy to club a DE over the head and change into his clothes, > just as you've seen in every action/adventure movie that ever was. If this ever really does happen in canon, then I will be extremely annoyed, and I will probably come right over here immediately, just to tell everyone, in excruciating detail, all about just how extremely annoyed I am. Just so you're warned. > Boy, I hope JKR is thinking this through as well as we are. ;-) I hope that she isn't. Without the inconsistencies, what on earth would we have to talk about? Besides, if she's thinking through this stuff nearly as *neurotically* as we are, then we really never *will* see Book Five. ----- As to the question of whether or not Snape's clutch at his arm during the staircase encounter in "The Egg and the Eye" was due to some Mark Tingling action caused by the presence of fellow mark-bearer Crouch... Oh, ugh! No! That's unspeakable! I totally reject that notion. I reject it because...um...er... Because if that had been the case, then surely Snape would have recognized the particular *nature* of the tingle or the burn or whatever. He would have told Dumbledore about it immediately, just as he'd been keeping Dumbledore informed throughout GoF on the status of his own dark mark and of Karkaroff's. Dumbledore therefore would have suspected Moody much sooner, he would have taken some form of action, and the entire tragedy would have been averted. Okay. So that's not really canon at all, but merely extrapolation. But all the same, I really do think it unlikely that it would have played out any other way. Also, I don't believe for a moment that Crouch would have taken that risk. Whether or not all of the DEs know that Snape's in with Dumbledore these days, I think it quite clear that Crouch himself did -- or at least that he strongly suspected it. I can't imagine that he would have sent Snape a little "Hi! I'm a Death Eater too! R U Available?" tingle, just for the sake of some casual sadism. I mean, the man may have been slightly off his rocker, but he wasn't a total moron. Mainly, though... Porphyria: > I really like the idea of Snape's having properly hysterical pain > there, especially since he acts ashamed of reacting to the pain, as > if it shows up a weakness. Yes. That's my primary reason as well. For heaven's sake, that scene is one of the few places in all canon where poor Severus stakes a claim on some pure and undiluted reader sympathy! If you guys want to water down his one unequivocal demonstration of overwhelming and deeply-felt shame about his past, then you can go ahead, I guess, but I'm not helping. I'll just stand here in the corner and sulk. ----- Amanda suggested that the mystic link that the DEs share with Voldemort might in fact bind their very lives to his. She wrote: > It seems his style, to demand such a commitment, and it would > guarantee their support of him (you'd think), and it would be a > very good reason for Snape to look pale or Dumbledore to look > anxious at the end of book 4--even when you have known for years > what you will do, and come to terms with what will happen, still, > walking out the door to begin steps that will lead, if successful, > to your own death, cannot be a thing one does lightly. She also suggested that this would contribute to Voldemort's fury with his Death Eaters: as they themselves were still alive, they *must* have known that he hadn't really died either, so they can hardly beg off on the "But, my Lord, I thought you were *dead!*" excuse for not having tried to find him after his disappearance. I find this an extremely compelling theory, particularly as I notice that not one of the Death Eaters in the graveyard scene so much as *tries* to excuse himself by means of the "But I thought you were dead" defense. Lucius Malfoy whines a bit about not having the slightest idea how to go about finding him, but that's not at all the same thing, and he does insist that he was "always on the alert." I also found Eloise's defense of the notion that "And then I ask myself, but how could they have believed I would not rise again?" really means, "They knew I couldn't be dead, how could they think I wouldn't regain my powers?" to be perfectly convincing. Porphyria objected that if this were indeed the case, then it would seem highly unlikely for the DEs to grant their allegiance to Dumbledore, which is what Voldemort accuses them of in the graveyard, as Dumbledore could bring about their own deaths. I'm not quite sure that I agree. Dumbledore is widely believed to be the most powerful wizard alive, right? And he worked with Flamel on the alchemical work which led to the discovery of the Philosopher's Stone. I think that if I were Voldemort, Dumbledore would be the very *first* on my list of people I'd suspect my disloyal, selfish, lusting-after-the-secrets-of-eternal-life Death Eaters to turn to, after I myself had vanished. It's not merely the fact that Dumbledore's the arch-enemy that leads to that accusation, in my opinion, but also the fact that from Voldemort's point of view, Dumbledore is a potential *rival* in the Promising To Grant Eternal Life To Followers game. This is Voldemort, remember. He probably comprehends the notion of rejecting eternal life about as well as he understands that whole Protective Power of Self-Sacrificing Love thing. Those sorts of concepts really do seem to be somewhat beyond his mental grasp. So I don't have that problem. I do have one cause for hesitation before wholeheartedly embracing Amanda's theory, though, which is that to my mind, if the relationship between Voldemort and the Death Eaters binds them in life and death, then it would also seem likely to me that it would bind their magical power as well. I would expect for the Death Eaters to have lost a good deal of their magical abilities when Voldemort was discorporated, and to have remained relatively weak for all of those years while he lingered on in his impotent state. And while I can certainly accept Eloise's suggestion that the reason that none but the looniest of the DEs ever tried to find Voldemort because from their point of view, Voldemort alive -- but also powerless, safely hidden away, and out of their hair -- was a win-win situation, I find that notion a bit harder to swallow if alive-but-powerless Voldemort also means alive-but-powerless Death Eaters. If that were the case, then I think more of them would have tried harder to restore him to power. But it's a minor quibble, and one that I am happy to quash by simply telling myself that the only powers they lost due to Voldemort's fall were all of those special ones that he had imbued them with in the first place -- a sacrifice that they were willing to make if it meant that they were also free from Voldemort himself and his bwah-hah-hah comic-book villain nuttiness. So okay. Amanda's convinced me. Eloise wrote: > Ooh, Amanda....you've made me go all quivery. I might have to go > and lie down for a bit. I wonder if Elkins still has that brandy? Help yourself, but I'm warning you: Cindy put something in it. You drink this stuff, and the next thing you know, first you'll be telling perfect strangers all about your most embarrassing childhood experiences, and then you'll find yourself jumping up and down on the couch, screaming things about bloody ambushes. But if you're willing to take that risk... Here you go, kiddo. Knock yourself out. ----- On a somewhat related topic, I've been wondering for some time now: what do people make of Voldemort's cheerful naming of names in the graveyard? I mean, Lucius Malfoy is one thing -- *everybody* knows that Malfoy is a Death Eater -- but people like Avery? Nott? MacNair? I don't get the impression that those guys were necessarily so high-ranking that the entire DE circle would have known their identities. I *particularly* don't believe this about Avery, who since he was one of Snape's contemporaries had to have been quite young the first time around, whose position within the circle would seem to imply a fairly low rank (he's not standing next to anyone important, and he doesn't even seem to have made it to the grouping where the Lestranges and possibly Rosier and Wilkes once stood), and whose demeanor...um...does not give the impression of someone with very much on the ball, shall we just say. (Of course, if one accepts Fourth Man, then it doesn't really matter if Voldemort names Avery, as everyone present would already know his identity -- but let's just leave Fourth Man out of this one, shall we?) So what have people made of all that name naming? Have others read this as proof that Karkaroff's claim that the DEs worked in secrecy was in truth a bit of a fib? Or have they preferred to assume that all of the DEs whose Names get Named in the graveyard really were people of some importance -- or people whose covers had already been blown -- and so secrecy for them was not an issue anyway? I tended to read it as a bit of stakes-raising on Voldemort's part, myself, combined with a bit of punishment. I don't think it at all likely that people like Avery and Nott had ever previously been Named to the DE circle as a whole. I think that by naming them -- to my ear, he does so rather deliberately that first time with Avery, almost as if he's making a point -- Voldemort is both expressing his disapproval of their past performance and making it clear to them that their loyalty to him this time around really is their best chance of personal safety. I find it telling, for example, that while Voldemort does name the Lestranges (whose cover has already been blown sky-high), he never once speaks Crouch Jr.'s name, nor those of the "coward" and the "traitor." Now, this is obviously primarily an authorial matter - - JKR wants to keep us guessing -- but I also think that it makes a certain degree of in-character sense: Voldemort isn't yet *certain* about what's going on with the suspected coward and traitor, and before he knows for sure that they really aren't both loyal and potentially useful to him, he's not going to put them at risk by revealing their names. Similarly, he obscures Pettigrew's identity by referring to him only as "Wormtail." This may be simply because that's just what Voldemort calls him, but it strikes me that it might also be a precaution: Wormtail may have been disloyal enough to merit some punishment, but he's also been loyal enough to merit a rather large reward, and for the time being, Voldemort's clearly planning on keeping him around as some kind of lieutenant -- or at the very least, as his personal valet. It seems quite possible to me that he really didn't want to reveal the man's real name to the entire DE circle. Of course, I do realize that my reading here is more a little bit weasel-like ("See, the reason that he names Avery and Nott is to *punish* them, and to make them all the more dependent on him, but the reason that he names *Malfoy,* see, is because Malfoy's an *important* Death Eater, so everyone knows his identity already, and..."). Nonetheless, I find myself believing in it. Any thoughts? ----- Oh, and I'm definitely in with SUCCESS. But I'll take my juice glass with Dumbledore's fingerprints all over it, if you don't mind. I don't think that Snape would have allowed Quirrell anywhere *near* his pumpkin juice. And besides, I like imagining Dumbledore spiking the juice. Twinkling as he did so, no doubt. (Does anyone but me ever kind of want to *hit* Albus Dumbledore?) -- Elkins, who doesn't know about Diana, but who certainly doesn't think that George has any problems with the idea that the DEs are an elite group. Certainly *her* SWEETGEORGIAN version of Snape was no wimpy, wishy-washy fellow-traveller. "Eyes Open" is, after all, part of the SWEETGEORGIANISM acronym. From ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 22 02:31:54 2002 From: ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com (Melanie Brackney) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:31:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Justafiable Means and Good using the Tools of Evil to Fight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020322023154.5811.qmail@web10902.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36834 I think it's fair to say that what was stated in the passages below just shows how developed JKR's characters are. I mean it's fair to say that many of the controversies that are the Harry Potter books can be easily applied to any problems in society. You see very "good" people do what we would consider "bad" things just so overall good will prevail, that's why we have wars. Oh and as for Molly...well I think she'll come around eventually. Melanie, who by the way isn't new but has decided to come back to the list after a very hard semester in college over! finwitch wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > -Chyna Rose: > > > Here is a semi-random question that entered my brain one > fine Wen moring. Is there a true, clear line between Good and > Evil? Does a means considered 'Evil' (use of 'dark' magic and > artifacts)automatically become good just because the 'Good' > side uses it? And who's to say that they are on the side of 'Good' > in the first place? > > > After all, I'm sure that V's convinced 100% Right. > > Finwitch:> > > Unforgivable Curses. *real* Moody never used them, even after > one Crouch authorised it. Crouch was not good- neither one of > them, although the son was worse. None of the "good" side has > EVER used one of them. > > > > Dementors. They are NOT good beings. > > > > Baddies consider obedience a virtue, goodies don't. (and I'm > NOT sure which side Snape belongs to!) > > > Are you sure about the real Moody? IIRC, Sirius only says (ch.27 > GoF) that he tried to bring people in alive, and didn't descend to > the level of the Death Eaters. He obviously didn't resign from the > Aurors after they were authorized to use the Unforgiveables. > Moody also brings people in alive so they can be turned over to > the Dementors, and from his lines in the Pensieve, he's okay > with that. At least he tried to avoid it the best he could. Much unlike Voldemort who uses Crucio on regular basis. And DEs as well. With no remorse. > I think that in the Potterverse there is a division between good > and evil, but that it is shown as difficult for human beings to > judge. Obedience, in the Potterverse, is not a virtue in itself, nor > is it one of the traditional RL seven. In the Potterverse, it can be > either good or bad, depending on who is being obeyed and for > what purpose. Not who. Doing something just because X says so is not good. Never mind who the X is. Molly is *good* person, but that doesn't mean the twins should abandon their dream just because she says so. Sirius has a good reason to tell Harry not to get involved with Krum (who very well might be under Imperius and told to do AK on Harry). Yet, it doesn't mean Harry should do it just because he's told to do so. Even so, these parental figures can be trusted to possibly know more and to care for you - the sort worth obeying most of the time. > Chivalry is one of the Gryffindor traits, according to the Hat. > Chivalry implies obedience to the chivalric code, which turns on > the existence of a moral order. Gryffindor represents doing what > is right, rather than what is easy. Sometimes it would be easier > to obey the rules than to do what is right according to chivalry, ie > defend the weak and the innocent. > > In fact, when Harry breaks a rule for selfish purposes, he's > usually punished, either directly or metaphorically with the loss > of something he values. When he breaks a rule in order to > defend someone weaker than himself, he's generally rewarded. Chivalry. Yes.. has to do with human rights, ethics etc. Doing what's Right. Doing good instead of evil. Defending those who can't defend themselves. (like Neville who wasn't there when Malfoy stole his remembrall). Well well, we have yet to see will a Gryffindor stand up for the poor little animals abused in class. Say - Harry opposing turning a snake into a stick without at least asking the snake's permission first. Neville opposing powdering beetles for a potion. > Harry's judgement is shown as maturing in this area. The > rescue of Norbert is carried on by wholly illegal means, for no > better reason than to keep Hagrid from getting caught doing > something he shouldn't have done. Harry suffers the loss of his > cloak for it. Yet... What would have happened to the egg if Hagrid didn't get it? Little Norbert might have died for no good reason. This way, the little dragon was saved, sent to an expert in Dragon handling. But, they should not have been so overjoyed about Malfoy getting detention when he wasn't exactly doing anything wrong. > In Buckbeak's case, Harry first attempts to save the hippogryff > legally, and aids its escape only because he is convinced the > creature is innocent and harmless if properly handled, in > contrast to the dragon Norbert, whom Harry knew to be > unmanageable. That still doesn't mean the little Dragon didn't have right to live. Krum lost points for damaging the dragons. -- Does one need to kill a dragon in order to get it's heart-string for a wand, BTW? Risky business anyway. Not that Harry&Co. never do anything wrong, but well, I'd see Dumbledore as /the/ Good One. Dumbledore /never/ demands for obedience just because he says so. He prefers requests to commands, possibly because if he happens to change his mind, it's easier to cancel. And one thing that definately puts Dumbledore as GOOD - no killing or torturing - when he's furious, he stupefies/breaks a door and even that was to save Harry! And about him looking scary... well, a strong wizard who is furious *is* scary. Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT ________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. Hey everyone please go to my Harry Potter site at: http://www.angelfire.com/realm/hogwarts2/index.html --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 22 02:42:06 2002 From: ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com (Melanie Brackney) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:42:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who's Afraid Of The Big, Bad Wolf? (WAS Odd parallels and FEATHERBOAS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020322024206.87727.qmail@web10908.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36835 I think that the lack of fear while Lupin is concerned is the fact that he is a pretty caring and harmless person when not a werewolf. And as far as motivations and feelings towards eachother I Think that JKR has a lot more underlying plots concerning the old school Hogwarts clan coming in the next books. I think that the answers to the feelings and motivations of these characters will be resolved in a little while. Melanie cindysphynx wrote: Marina wrote (about my creeping suspicion that Snape has no good motivation to leave the castle in the first place): > Yeah, that does seem a bit, uhm... plot-driven, doesn't it? Ah, well, maybe so, although opinions obviously differ. I think my problem, when you boil it right down, is that I generally expect characters to react to the objective facts and be motivated by those facts, not motivated just by feelings. As I said, I think the facts point to Snape being motivated to stay in the castle. Snape doesn't like Lupin based on feelings and bias perhaps, but maybe that's enough motivation to make Snape's actions credible. So, everyone, when one is analyzing whether an author has established a proper motivation for a character's actions, what are we supposed to consider? As I said before, I think the objective facts suggest Lupin is headed to the Shack to transform, so Snape is lacking a good reason to leave the castle. But then again, maybe JKR doesn't need objective facts in order to justify Snape's actions because his feelings are so strong. Hmmmm. Marina again: > This also fits in with hints given earlier in the book that Snape >is > still afraid of Lupin. I hadn't considered the possibility that Snape is afraid of Lupin. I kind of reached the opposite conclusion: that Snape doesn't fear Lupin, Black, Dumbledore or anyone in the wizarding world except . . . Moody. ::smiles at the idea that she now has an additional reason to like Moody:: There is a canon clue, after all, that Snape does not fear Lupin: "Lupin!" Snape called into the fire. "I want a word!" Yup, Snape doesn't hesitate for one minute about summoning Lupin to his office. Snape also feels quite comfortable glaring at Lupin and acting up (ridiculing Neville) in Snape's presence. He also thinks nothing of criticizing Lupin to Dumbledore in the presence of Percy, and he does it again when he substitutes for Lupin and criticizes him in front of the DADA class. Snape probably wouldn't do those things to someone he feared or even respected. I mean, I can't imagine Snape summoning Moody like that unless Snape was on fire. That Moody . . . Moody chills Snape right to the bone, doesn't he? Snape doesn't dare display open hostility toward Moody like he does toward the other DADA teachers. And in GoF, Snape changes abruptly on the staircase when Moody shows up. Snape is ordering Filch around and snapping at Filch. But when Moody arrives, "Snape stops talking abruptly." A vein "flickered horribly on Snape's greasy temple." The normally-articulate Snape starts speaking in incomplete sentences. Snape uses a soft voice, a "voice of forced calm" and speaks through clenched teeth. Then Snape retreats, saying "I think I will go back to bed." The comparison between Snape's conduct with Moody versus Lupin suggests that Snape isn't the least bit afraid of Lupin, I'd say. Sirius isn't intimidated by Lupin, either. Sirius is lunging at Peter and heckling Lupin during Lupin's werewolf adventures speech, so he isn't at all afraid of Lupin. The only person who seems to be terrified of Lupin is, uh, Scabbers. And maybe Crookshanks. :-) Cindy Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT ________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. Hey everyone please go to my Harry Potter site at: http://www.angelfire.com/realm/hogwarts2/index.html --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 22 02:42:15 2002 From: ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com (Melanie Brackney) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:42:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who's Afraid Of The Big, Bad Wolf? (WAS Odd parallels and FEATHERBOAS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020322024215.65244.qmail@web10903.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36836 I think that the lack of fear while Lupin is concerned is the fact that he is a pretty caring and harmless person when not a werewolf. And as far as motivations and feelings towards eachother I Think that JKR has a lot more underlying plots concerning the old school Hogwarts clan coming in the next books. I think that the answers to the feelings and motivations of these characters will be resolved in a little while. Melanie cindysphynx wrote: Marina wrote (about my creeping suspicion that Snape has no good motivation to leave the castle in the first place): > Yeah, that does seem a bit, uhm... plot-driven, doesn't it? Ah, well, maybe so, although opinions obviously differ. I think my problem, when you boil it right down, is that I generally expect characters to react to the objective facts and be motivated by those facts, not motivated just by feelings. As I said, I think the facts point to Snape being motivated to stay in the castle. Snape doesn't like Lupin based on feelings and bias perhaps, but maybe that's enough motivation to make Snape's actions credible. So, everyone, when one is analyzing whether an author has established a proper motivation for a character's actions, what are we supposed to consider? As I said before, I think the objective facts suggest Lupin is headed to the Shack to transform, so Snape is lacking a good reason to leave the castle. But then again, maybe JKR doesn't need objective facts in order to justify Snape's actions because his feelings are so strong. Hmmmm. Marina again: > This also fits in with hints given earlier in the book that Snape >is > still afraid of Lupin. I hadn't considered the possibility that Snape is afraid of Lupin. I kind of reached the opposite conclusion: that Snape doesn't fear Lupin, Black, Dumbledore or anyone in the wizarding world except . . . Moody. ::smiles at the idea that she now has an additional reason to like Moody:: There is a canon clue, after all, that Snape does not fear Lupin: "Lupin!" Snape called into the fire. "I want a word!" Yup, Snape doesn't hesitate for one minute about summoning Lupin to his office. Snape also feels quite comfortable glaring at Lupin and acting up (ridiculing Neville) in Snape's presence. He also thinks nothing of criticizing Lupin to Dumbledore in the presence of Percy, and he does it again when he substitutes for Lupin and criticizes him in front of the DADA class. Snape probably wouldn't do those things to someone he feared or even respected. I mean, I can't imagine Snape summoning Moody like that unless Snape was on fire. That Moody . . . Moody chills Snape right to the bone, doesn't he? Snape doesn't dare display open hostility toward Moody like he does toward the other DADA teachers. And in GoF, Snape changes abruptly on the staircase when Moody shows up. Snape is ordering Filch around and snapping at Filch. But when Moody arrives, "Snape stops talking abruptly." A vein "flickered horribly on Snape's greasy temple." The normally-articulate Snape starts speaking in incomplete sentences. Snape uses a soft voice, a "voice of forced calm" and speaks through clenched teeth. Then Snape retreats, saying "I think I will go back to bed." The comparison between Snape's conduct with Moody versus Lupin suggests that Snape isn't the least bit afraid of Lupin, I'd say. Sirius isn't intimidated by Lupin, either. Sirius is lunging at Peter and heckling Lupin during Lupin's werewolf adventures speech, so he isn't at all afraid of Lupin. The only person who seems to be terrified of Lupin is, uh, Scabbers. And maybe Crookshanks. :-) Cindy Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT ________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. Hey everyone please go to my Harry Potter site at: http://www.angelfire.com/realm/hogwarts2/index.html --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 22 02:49:11 2002 From: ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com (Melanie Brackney) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:49:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid, Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: <000101c1d07a$7238d800$13a2520c@s0023817978> Message-ID: <20020322024911.30730.qmail@web10906.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36837 Personally I can't see any house that Hagrid would be in besides perhaps Hufflepuff, if he isn't a gryffindor which I think he is. But this whole moral compass think bugs me with Gryffindor. I had a fight with one of my friends about this I would soo dissappointed if it turns out that Pettigrew wasn't a gryffindor, why? Because I think it's too boring to have all the good characters be Gryffindor and the bad characters be Slytherin. But I do wonder about Sirius sometimes...not that he's not good but whether or not he was a Gryffindor. But I think he probably was. CARRIE MUNGAI wrote: I believe that Hagrid was in Gryffindor because he seems to have a good moral compass. IMO he has shown bravery, left without parents at age 12, willing to take on any task for Dumbledore. Spottydog ----- Original Message ----- From: RYANS To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 11:13 PM Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid, Keeper of the Keys I have always liked Hagrid too! There is just one thing that has bothered me about him- he doesn't seem brave enough to be a Gryffindor! He is brave enough around his 'beasts' but then again, he's bigger than most of them are! How did he get in then? I'd appreciate any comments! Lazyscientist. >>Did I mention already that he is my favorite character? :-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] 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. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT ________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. Hey everyone please go to my Harry Potter site at: http://www.angelfire.com/realm/hogwarts2/index.html --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 22 02:56:17 2002 From: ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com (Melanie Brackney) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:56:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Dobby a good house elf/short? In-Reply-To: <15F4D924.16C4A975.B13B89B9@netscape.net> Message-ID: <20020322025617.68058.qmail@web10907.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36838 Dobby is a rebel. I mean that's just the facts, he wants pay, he took pay, he enjoys time off, he was thrilled to death about being freed. I just think Dobby is a unique house elf and nothing more! Melanie kellybroughton at netscape.net wrote: >"It state in COS chapter two--- "The Wizard family >Dobby serves, sir... DObby is a house-elf... bound to >serve one house and one family forever." > >and since later we find out that he's Malfoys elf... I >dont think he could be the Potters old elf." >adrienne > Well.... I wonder. If Dobby truly *is* the Malfoys' house-elf, theirs alone and always will be, WHY then would he make the effort to go to Harry on his own initiative(?) and try to keep Harry from going back to Hogwarts in order to save Harry? In other words, why would Dobby *care* whether Harry goes back or not? Dobby makes it quite clear that the Malfoys don't even know what he's doing, and if they ever find out, they'll put him in a serious hurt.(Refer to Cos, page 14.) I am of the mind that there's something going on to make Dobby go against his nature (being a "good house-elf") that forces him to make such a bold action. Could the reason possibly be that, by going to Harry without the Malfoys' knowledge and/or permission, that Dobby actually IS being a "good house-elf"? Just something to ponder. "I have read GoF and CoS each about three times and nowhere >can I find out how tall they are. In GoF, Winky comes into Moody's >office behind Snape and she is standing behind him and I think she is >up to his knees (?) Which makes me think that Dobby and Winky are >about three feet tall, but does anyone else know. Thanks" > >Betsy If it's true that Winky comes up to Snape's knees, then she must be about a foot and a half or so- three feet tall (a meter or yard) would be about waist height. -kel -- __________________________________________________________________ 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/ Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT ________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. Hey everyone please go to my Harry Potter site at: http://www.angelfire.com/realm/hogwarts2/index.html --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 22 03:03:32 2002 From: ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com (Melanie Brackney) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:03:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: Questions about history or families Message-ID: <20020322030332.89694.qmail@web10905.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36839 I am very curious about the history of the families of Sirius, Snape, and even the Potters. I mean if the Wizard life expectancy is as old as JKR's claims it to be you would think there would be at least some mention as to the families of these wizards. I mean it is never talked about Sirius's family? Wouldn't they have tried to contact Harry, unless they to though Sirius was a deatheater in which case most likely disowned him. But I can't find myself to believe that is the case really. But I mean you would think that James Potter would have some living relatives, grandparents, cousins, parents, siblings? Perhaps there is some secret reason they are being kept away from Harry? Perhaps they are just all dead or at St. Mungo's but it got me thinking at least a little bit. Melanie --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From porphyria at mindspring.com Fri Mar 22 03:10:14 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:10:14 -0500 Subject: Memory Charm Most Foul Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36840 Porphyria sits on a blanket on the shoreline, waiting for the imminent arrival of the Fourth Man Hovercraft. The sun is pinkening the sky over the choppy waves. She's been knocking back shots of Eloise's scotch all afternoon because Eloise is *too darn nice* to say anything about it, and the play of light on the clouds and whitecaps is slowly but steadily blurring. She's pondering the variety of Still Life with Memory Charm replies, fruit of the waning day's posts. She thinks about how Dicentra said what she was trying to say about 'forgetting the past' as a thematic problem, only Dicentra said it a thousand times better. She considers that Tabouli could be right to suggest Neville's problems are all the result of his own entirely non-magical act of repression. And mostly she muses about how... Eileen is my New Best Friend. Both for the wonderful Livian Rome conceit, which I think is spot on, and for quoting in its entirety my very beloved poem. (I do cite Browning's inspiration in post 34740.) How can I repay you for the sacrifice of a crashed browser! I'll have to swallow hot coals to restore my honor. Now, if I were a lot more sober, I'd say that the first half of Eileen's post is really the way JKR intends it. Gran is the figure of honor, nobility and righteous vengeance (as is Snape), the Longbottoms really want Neville to be an auror, and he in turn sees Gran and Snape as symbols of the violence-begets-violence cycle he does not want to perpetuate ("I don't want more trouble"). And maybe he will be the next Herbology Professor. However, since I'm getting progressively more soused I thought I'd give my 'murder most foul' theory a shot, again with thanks to Eileen for the encouragement. That and I'm still smarting from a most peculiar conversation with Elkins in which she said to me: << That you give the impression of being so, er, so...so... So canonically pure. >> Heh heh. Yeah. OK then. Actually, SpecFic (yes, that's speculative fiction) is not my specialty, it's Elkins' in fact, and Eileen has already gotten the drop on this plotline, but here it goes: Granny Longbottom -- should we just call her Gertrude? Anyway, Gran's husband the patriarch Francis J. Longbottom died shortly after the fall of Voldemort and he bequeathed the entirety of his formidable estate to his beloved and very heroic son Frank. This infuriated Gran to no end. She went through all sorts of schemes and litigations to get a share of the property, both for herself and her innumerable siblings, but to no avail. Finally in the midst of her fevered supplications she came upon the one man who seemed powerful enough to help her, and strangely willing as well. Lucius Malfoy. Lucius, who was more slippery in those days, had innumerable connections at the MoM, money, influence, chilly aristocratic good looks, yadda yadda yadda. Gran knew about his nasty reputation, but there'd never be a need to tell anyone about a teensy little alliance with such a powerful pureblood. She could justify accepting a favor or two. And Lucius? He seemed only to eager to be of help, indeed the very second he sensed a whiff of unrequited rapacity emanating from her fox fur stoles. Well, they formed an alliance all right. You can imagine the details. Lucius started making little midnight visits to her wing of the Longbottom mansion. Starting making them near every night. So often he finally got her to give him the counter-curses to all the protections guarding the doorways. Now Gran should have known better, but she was a little swept away. And still feeling lonely and rebuffed from the death of her ungrateful husband. And while the Longbottoms were a proud old wizarding family, they couldn't hold a Bluebell flame to the Malfoys. And besides, Lucius was so handsome and so much *younger* than she was. By like a decade or two. But who's counting decades when you live to 150? Well this went on for some time before he finally made her an offer. He'd take care of getting her a piece of the estate if she would only be so kind as to give him just this one little thing.... That stash. You know, the stash of confiscated materials that Frank was in charge of guarding, being the well-esteemed Auror he was. The stash with Voldemort's diary. And all the funky poisons. And all the cursed muggle-baiting objects. Yeah, that stash. Frank had it locked up in a magically-expanded trunk in the wine-cellar. All Gran had to do was lead Lucius to it and let him make off with it. It was so simple. The fact that Gran actually had no idea what was in the trunk made it easier for her. Frank, meaning well, had told her it contained paperwork (parchment-work?) or some such nonsense. And since Voldemort had already fallen, she figured what harm could it do? Let Lucius have his little scheme. It was really none of her business. And he'd promised to help get her estate back in return. And Lucius kept his promise. He told the Lestranges how to get past all the curses protecting the Longbottom mansion. And in they came. And now Gran has legal control of the estate. Well, little Neville, who was like two or so at the time, he was a perspicacious little boy. He knew all about Gran's special friend and he knew there were secrets and he knew it had something to do with the night that his parents' minds were destroyed before his eyes. And he willed a massive Memory Charm upon himself with all the strength he had. 'Cause why would anyone else charm the kid? He was too little to give testimony (the testimony of thirteen year old wizards doesn't even count), and I think these Warrior Ethos types wouldn't bother to spare him. After all, he's supposed to grow up to avenge the wrongs against his parents -- isn't he? And herein lies the problem. This is the real reason he's keeping himself back. He knows all about his parents. He visits them every holiday. He knows all about their torturers because it's a matter of public record. But why would he be so afraid of finding his power when he really doesn't have to wreak vengeance on behalf of his parents -- all the culprits are already in jail! No, his memory is self-damaged because the person he'd go ballistic upon is the person he loves more than anything in the world. I like to believe that Gran has no idea that Neville is suffering from some sort of formal Obliviate because she's the one who sends him the Remembrall. Ah yes, that nasty little gift that tells you you've forgotten something, but not what. The thing that changes to vivid scarlet just to taunt you, scarlet like Gran's ever-present handbag, the symbol of her avaricious crime. Ah, the irony. Not to mention the fact that Draco wants it. Canon you say? Oh, 'cause I'm so canonically pure? Oh yeah. >:-) When Harry blows up his stern, shrewish, elder female relative for disgracing his parents, he goes on the run. What alias does he use? Mmm hmm. Neville Longbottom. When Neville has the misfortune to be robbed of his passwords by an enterprising kitty his grandmother sends him a howler. "Neville's grandmother's voice, magically magnified to a hundred times its usual volume, shrieking about how he had brought shame on the whole family." Shame for letting a Death Eater have access to his bedroom? Oh yeah. She's upset all right. She's beside herself. And last but not least, this is the woman with a *giant friggin' stuffed vulture* teetering on the top of her hat. Hello? If this isn't a woman happy to pick the meat off the bones of her dead and disabled family, then I don't know who is. Oh, and where does Snape come into this? He knows. He's always known. Lucius told him. And the whole thing galls him to no end, but he's not letting anything slip. He's just waiting for Neville to finally explode when he can't repress the memory any more. Then he'll have a very good laugh, because Snape has a sick sense of humor. As do I, I think. ~~Porphyria, quietly vowing to lay off the single malt for a while.... From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Fri Mar 22 04:23:09 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 04:23:09 -0000 Subject: Shakesperian Scene (quasi-filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36841 Act 4, Scene 1 A cavern. In the middle, a boiling cauldron. Thunder. Enter the three Slytherins MALFOY Thrice the Bulstrode cat hath mew'd. CRABBE Thrice and once has Hedwig whined. GOYLE Salazar cries 'Tis time, 'tis time. CRABBE Crabbe plus Goyle then Draco Now about the cauldron throw Book unread by Hermy-own-ee, DVD of Sorcerer's Stone-y, Missing toe of Scabbers Rat Boil thou first in Slytherin's vat. ALL Dabble, dabble, Goyle and Crab'll; Fires burn as psychos babble. GOYLE Sign of Little Whinging snake, In the cauldron boil and bake; Test of NEWTs and Wart of Hog, Flea from Animagic dog, Moldy robes and Bertie's Beans Prefect's badge, Canary Creams For a curse increasingly grimmer In this hell-broth broil and simmer ALL Dribble, dribble, quibble with Sibyll; Harry's troubles ain't with Tribbles. MALFOY In our potion next I splash Leather slacks I wore in Slash, Milkbone on which Fluffy chews Fanfic starring Mary Sue Choc'late bar of Remus Lupin Winky's bowl that she slurps soup in Out-takes from The Chamber's scripts News of Ron & Hermy ships Old PlayStation smashed by Dudley Critter that Hagrid thinks cuddly Snitch that scored in Chudley win Piece of Viktor Krum sharkfin Riddle's message Ginny scrawled on For the ingredients of our cauldron. ALL Neville, Devil's Coils and Trevor; Revel we in our endeavors. GOYLE Pound it with a Mudblood's thud, Then the charm is firm and good. MALFOY (exultantly) By the succumbing of this prick I've perfected Dark Magic! Exeunt omnes - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From editor at texas.net Fri Mar 22 04:29:50 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:29:50 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark Mark and DEs (was:DE Name Origin, & some Dark Mark) References: Message-ID: <007601c1d15a$4890de40$707d63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36842 Elkins said many things: > Eloise, Porphyria, and Amanda were having a really fascinating > conversation last week about Dark Marks, DEs, scars, and a whole > lot of great Snapestuff. Oh, thank you! Nobody seems to be responding to my commentary, and I thought my postings might be going to the Great Beyond instead of the list--there's often times when I don't *get* all the posts. Some Yahoo hiccup, I imagine. On Snape's reaction to Moody in the hallway NOT being recognition in any form: > Because if that had been the case, then surely Snape would have > recognized the particular *nature* of the tingle or the burn or > whatever. He would have told Dumbledore about it immediately, just > as he'd been keeping Dumbledore informed throughout GoF on the status > of his own dark mark and of Karkaroff's. Dumbledore therefore would > have suspected Moody much sooner, he would have taken some form of > action, and the entire tragedy would have been averted. > > Okay. So that's not really canon at all, but merely extrapolation. But sound extrapolation. Very well put. Snape *is* given to taking matters into his own hands when he feels Dumbledore has not given credence to his warnings. BUT--he would have warned Dumbledore first, and THEN taken matters into his own hands. Dumbledore himself says he didn't suspect until Moody took Harry away after the last task, so Snape said nothing, which I take to indicate Snape suspected nothing. That, and Snape's surprise when Barty's identity IS revealed. > Porphyria: > > > I really like the idea of Snape's having properly hysterical pain > > there, especially since he acts ashamed of reacting to the pain, as > > if it shows up a weakness. > > Yes. That's my primary reason as well. For heaven's sake, that scene > is one of the few places in all canon where poor Severus stakes a > claim on some pure and undiluted reader sympathy! If you guys want > to water down his one unequivocal demonstration of overwhelming and > deeply-felt shame about his past, then you can go ahead, I guess, but > I'm not helping. I'll just stand here in the corner and sulk. Move over, I'll join you. I also thought there was also a fair amount of anger in his response to Moody, but it is not righteous anger; it is guilty anger. And fear, too, I'd say; Moody can, with a word, do what Snape did to Lupin and destroy his position. Some highly placed people do know that Snape was a DE, but if it was reported in Skeeter-esque fashion, there would be an outcry and Snape would probably have to leave Hogwarts. This would be bad on many levels--- a) it has been postulated that Snape is there for his own protection; it may be dangerous for him away from the school, where he could be a target for both anyone loyal to Voldemort (taking revenge on his betrayal) or anyone against Voldemort (taking revenge for his being a DE). b) Clearly, Dumbledore and Snape have some well-laid plans ready for the day Voldemort might return. Snape's not being there would totally screw these up, and I believe that the potential for wrecking their plans is enough to shake Snape up--it's his redemption, in his own eyes, we're talking about here, that's what's threatened. There's probably more, but these are what I think would most readily have crossed Snape's mind in the flash of the moment, along with the angst of standing in front of someone who knows your secret, knows you know, and is toying with you. > Amanda suggested that the mystic link that the DEs share with > Voldemort might in fact bind their very lives to his. > > I find this an extremely compelling theory, particularly as I notice > that not one of the Death Eaters in the graveyard scene so much as > *tries* to excuse himself by means of the "But I thought you were > dead" defense. Lucius Malfoy whines a bit about not having the > slightest idea how to go about finding him, but that's not at all > the same thing, and he does insist that he was "always on the alert." Oooo. I hadn't noticed that. They none of them do, do they? This Means Something. > So I don't have that problem. I do have one cause for hesitation > before wholeheartedly embracing Amanda's theory, though, which is > that to my mind, if the relationship between Voldemort and the Death > Eaters binds them in life and death, then it would also seem likely > to me that it would bind their magical power as well. I would expect > for the Death Eaters to have lost a good deal of their magical > abilities when Voldemort was discorporated, and to have remained > relatively weak for all of those years while he lingered on in his > impotent state. And while I can certainly accept Eloise's suggestion > that the reason that none but the looniest of the DEs ever tried to > find Voldemort because from their point of view, Voldemort alive -- > but also powerless, safely hidden away, and out of their hair -- was > a win-win situation, I find that notion a bit harder to swallow if > alive-but-powerless Voldemort also means alive-but-powerless Death > Eaters. If that were the case, then I think more of them would have > tried harder to restore him to power. Hmmm. I don't think wizarding powers are the type of thing you can bind that way. We're talking about innate abilities, like good balance or color sense or perfect pitch. Hogwarts and other wizarding schools teach you to use the ability, but the ability itself is inborn. Removing life from someone via a means like the Mark would be relatively easy--all you must do is damage the body enough, in any of myriad unpleasant ways. But I don't know that you could alter one facet of their personalities like this; even Memory Charms don't obliterate, they interfere with function (at least, that's what evidence suggests). If it were possible to bind to communal power this way, I imagine that Voldemort wouldn't have spent his years possessing squirrels--he'd tap the power of the DEs through the bond and come bouncing back ready for more. I think the nature of the bond is what we speculated, that the Death Eaters did, in fact, "take" his death for him, and his survival at all is the workings of that. Nor would anyone, including Dumbledore, have been able to stand before Voldemort with the combined power of x-teen wizards at his command. So I don't think the binding of powers is a possibility in the way JKR's world is set up. Interestingly, though, it has been speculated also that Dumbledore is in some way "bound" to Hogwarts itself, and able to draw upon the school itself somehow. So many other magic objects in JKR's world seem to think for themselves, and exercise their powers with some degree of will--it seems unreasonable that Hogwarts, a focus of wizarding study for so long and founded by so renowned a set of wizards, would not have its own power and will on some level. Perhaps the Founders imbued it with their personalities? The Sorting Hat was Gryffindor's; does it show any of his style, I wonder? Perhaps the powers of objects, having been put their magically, can be bound magically; while the powers of wizards, being an inborn part of their beings, cannot. But I stray off the thread; sorry. > So okay. Amanda's convinced me. Yaaay! Somebody thinks I make sense! Even us old guys need an attaboy occasionally! :::does happy dance::: > (Of course, if one accepts > Fourth Man, then it doesn't really matter if Voldemort names Avery, > as everyone present would already know his identity -- but let's just > leave Fourth Man out of this one, shall we?) Um. About that fourth man thing. I really wasn't following it and have no idea what you guys are talking about, and now that we're into hovercrafts and neon paint, I'm totally at sea. If anyone wants to make a sober statement about what is at the core of the discussion (or was, before we got into spiked brandy), certain of us would like that.... > Or have they preferred to assume that > all of the DEs whose Names get Named in the graveyard really were > people of some importance -- or people whose covers had already been > blown -- and so secrecy for them was not an issue anyway? > I tended to read it as a bit of stakes-raising on Voldemort's part, > myself, combined with a bit of punishment. I don't think it at all > likely that people like Avery and Nott had ever previously been Named > to the DE circle as a whole. I think that by naming them -- to my > ear, he does so rather deliberately that first time with Avery, > almost as if he's making a point -- Voldemort is both expressing his > disapproval of their past performance and making it clear to them > that their loyalty to him this time around really is their best > chance of personal safety. Also, it might be moot in Voldemort's mind at this point. He's just removed the main obstacle that thwarted him previously--Harry. He thinks Harry is powerless to stop him, having overcome the love-barrier. He's about to kill Harry and then Portkey himself and all the DEs to Hogwarts, there to attack the gathered assemblage and probably win, right there. The crowd at Hogwarts includes the highest-ranking MoM officials, the most powerful Hogwarts teachers, the children of the most prominent wizarding families in the UK, and the children of (probably) several of the most prominent wizarding families on the Continent. The Portkey will bring Voldemort and his guys in, *inside* the wards of the school. Nobody in the crowd suspects a thing, is on guard, or is focused on anything but the maze and the task. The ones he doesn't kill, he will hold hostage, and what he can do to hostages is probably beyond our imaginings. Voldemort is about to take over the world. Why the hell should he *care* if his DEs know each other's identities now? [Incidentally, this has always been my argument for the "why bother with the whole Cup-as-Portkey thing?" It's a deliberate stratagem.] > I find it telling, for example, that while Voldemort does name the > Lestranges (whose cover has already been blown sky-high), he never > once speaks Crouch Jr.'s name, nor those of the "coward" and > the "traitor." Now, this is obviously primarily an authorial matter - > - JKR wants to keep us guessing -- but I also think that it makes a > certain degree of in-character sense: Voldemort isn't yet *certain* > about what's going on with the suspected coward and traitor, and > before he knows for sure that they really aren't both loyal and > potentially useful to him, he's not going to put them at risk by > revealing their names. The way I read it, he was assuming the others knew who they were. But it's a good thought. Also, when he arrives at Hogwarts, the coward and traitor might yet prove useful, and he doesn't want to have to eat his words. Or so goeth my verbose speculations. Whatcha think? --Amanda From elfundeb at aol.com Fri Mar 22 04:59:53 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:59:53 EST Subject: Magic Outside of School and FLIRTIAC Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36843 In a message dated 3/20/2002 10:43:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, huntleyl at mssm.org writes: > Of course, they aren't allowed to use magic outside of school -- Well, after Elkins' fabulous still-life (which I'm deeply contemplating with my own memory-charmed mind), the scope of the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery seems quite trivial, but I'm working on a possible new Snapetheory to which the legality of his learning all those curses before he showed up to Hogwarts may (or may not) be relevant. But the prohibition on underage magic seems a tad haphazard in its application -- may indeed be a bit flinty -- and the recent posts about Dobby have prompted me to subject the law and its application to a little analysis. First, the prohibition seems to apply very haphazardly. Dobby uses a hovering charm and Harry gets a warning owl from the very intimidating Mafalda Hopkirk of the Improper Use of Magic Office stating very specifically that underage wizards are not allowed to perform spells outside of school and risk expulsion for doing so. He also runs afoul of a Statute of Secrecy prohibiting magical activity that risks notice by Muggles. That all sounds very reasonable. But others are performing plenty of magic outside of school. With all the charmed wands and Ton-Tongue Toffees that the Weasley Twins have been busy concocting (not to mention the teddy bear they transfigured when they were 5), why haven't they been expelled? Doesn't each one require a separate spell? Molly worries about the Improper Use of Magic Office coming after them, but they've gotten away with quite a bit. But the real shocker is that even follow-the-rules Hermione claims on the train to Hogwarts in PS/SS that she's tried a few simple spells and they all worked. I can't imagine that she'd have mentioned this if those spells had resulted in a threat of expulsion from Mafalda, so she must have gotten away with it, or the prohibition didn't apply to her. Finally, the prohibition does not seem to apply to accidental magic. No warning arrived when Harry regrew his hair, or changed the teacher's hair color, or set the boa constrictor on Dudley, though these actions risked notice by Muggles and should have been specifically targeted. How to reconcile all this? I have a few theories: Theory 1. Though Harry's letter does not say so (because he lives in a Muggle home) the restriction does not apply to children living in wizarding households performing magic at home, where they are presumed to be under the supervision of their parents. This explanation is not entirely satisfactory as it does not explain accidental magic. Maybe accidental magic by Harry and other pre-Hogwarts children in Muggle households is just handled by the Accidental Magic Reversal Squad. It also doesn't explain how Hermione avoided censure (and I don't think the supervision of Muggle parents would be satisfactory because one of the purposes of the prohibition is to prevent children attempting magic they aren't ready for that will result in unintended consequences), unless after buying her books in Diagon Alley she settled down at Florean Fortescue's for a quick charms lesson over a huge ice cream sundae. Possible, but I think she would have tackled "Hogwarts - A History" first. No, I think she did her practicing at home. Maybe Hermione had a wizarding mentor, but more likely, IMO, her spells are just a Flint. 2. The second option is that the Office of Improper Magic is a very small operation and poor Mafalda (and what few colleagues she may have -- I imagine one person per shift running this show) can't possibly keep track of all the magic being performed by children all over Britain. So she ignores all the wizarding households and concentrates on magic occurring in Muggle homes and public places. But this still doesn't explain how Hermione got away with it. 3. And there must be a broom-flying, Quidditch-playing exception too, as long as the Muggles don't see you. The next problem is how Mafalda figures out who is performing the magic -- assuming, as I expect, that Arthur Weasley did not get an owl from Mafalda on the mistaken assumption that Harry was cutting Dudley's tongue down to size and cleaning up the Dursleys' fireplace. -- though it's possible that such an owl could have arrived after Arthur left. My theory here is that Mafalda uses a magnified type of Marauder's Map which pinpoints the magic activity as well as the persons present at that location. This still doesn't explain, however, why Harry got charged with Dobby's magic. After all, wouldn't the map show Mafalda that Dobby was in the kitchen with Harry? The answer to that, of course, is that the map only shows humans. Dobby's not human, so he's not on the map. Mafalda sees only Harry and a Hovering Charm in the kitchen and five Muggles in the dining room. So the warning goes out (though you'd think the office would have more sense than to deliver it in front of the Muggles . . . .) And now for the final conclusion: Assuming that the MWPP Marauder's Map works like Mafalda's map (perhaps a large assumption but I'll assume anyway), Mrs. Norris' appearance on the Marauder's Map indicates that she is indeed human. And now I ask Captain Tabouli, will this suffice as a ticket to the FLIRTIAC dinghy? Would it help if I promised that my Snapetheory would include LOLLIPOPS? If I brought refreshments? Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kellybroughton at netscape.net Fri Mar 22 03:25:00 2002 From: kellybroughton at netscape.net (kellybroughton at netscape.net) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:25:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Dobby a good house elf? Message-ID: <460301FC.4D27AA36.B13B89B9@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36844 Grey Wolf writes: "Whatever gave you the idea that Dobby is a good house-elf? He's probably the worst house-elf ever, mainly because there is something appart from air or fluff between his ears." In my defense, I was going on a tangent posted in message 36763 by finwitch(?), dealing with the possibility that Dobby *may* have been the Potters' house-elf. When I read that, it just made sense to me somehow, because ever since I learned that Dobby belonged(?) to the Malfoys, I have wondered why Dobby would go to Harry with what he knows. I understand house-elves to be so devoted to their owners to the degree that they pretty much think the same way their masters do/believe everything their masters say (my only reference to this is how Winky reacts when Bagman is mentioned; she vehemently states that "Mr Bagman is a very bad wizard!" Not sure if she is simply regurgitating what Crouch says/believes, or if she truly does have some magical knowledge or psychic ability to judge ppl's characters), and the fact that Dobby's behavior is the total opposite of what everyone in the wizarding community would expect of a good house-elf when he goes to Harry without his current owners' knowledge, tells me that he might have belonged to the Potters. Anna(?) writes in message 36776: "On a side note, I think Dobby is being completely honest when he says Harry is a beacon of hope; there's really nothing in the books to suggest that Dobby knew Harry before he met him that first time. In fact, house elves don't seem to be good liars, so unless Dobby is exceptional in that regard, too, I can't buy the previous owner theory." My reasoning explains this due to the fact that Harry was only a baby when the adult Potters got killed; as far as I'm concerned, it takes longer than just the first year of life to actually develop a full personality to be known by. Therefore, Dobby would know more *of* Harry (thanks to the Malfoys, and maybe, the "house-elf network") than actually personally *knowing* Harry himself. "Dobby is a very strange elf, as we all know. He expects to be payed, for one thing, and actually LIKES being free. Whatever his reasons may be, they nevertheless imply that he has thought long and hard about his condition, both before and after his liberation from the Malfoy family. He has reflected on how he was treated and concluded he disliked it, and prefered striking out on his own. Normally, an elf's reaction would be the traditional "whatever the problem is, it's my fault" which is the one Winky takes on every occasion. This second option is the easiest for an elf because it needs no thinking, but Dobby refuses to take it, thus making him very bad at the job of slave (one of the curses of intelligence)." I think I can refute this by going back to the possibility that he used to be owned by the Potters: he remembers how they (maybe) used to treat him, and is able to compare that with how he is currently being treated by his present (substitute) family, and being an intelligent being, has stated a preference. But then again, if he was originally the Potters' house elf, he really CANNOT state a preference and then act on it: to me, he is still kinda acting like he belongs to the Potters (for want of a better description). Knowing that Harry is still alive, and is now in some real danger if he goes back to Hogwarts, he is compelled to do what he can to protect his true master, even though, being so young or whatever, Harry does not truly own Dobby. "In conclussion: Dobby was a very bad slave, and helped Harry as a form of rebellion against his owners (choosing Harry because he had insider's information on which to work and beacuase, being intelligent, he knew Harry was the one to help)." Believe it or not, this is similar to my way of thinking. It does make sense when you think along the lines of Dobby once belonging to the Potters. He IS a very bad slave, as far as the Malfoys are concerned, but if the Potters once owned him, how would they view his behavior? See my above statement, and/or feel free to keep questioning me if you're still confused. "Once liberated, however, he discovers freedom and the horrible danger it brings with it: boredom. thus, he looks for a job, and finds out that, being free, he enjoys what he had been doing all along, except for the slave part, so he gets a job at being a servant but where he doesn't have to put up with being ultimately faithful to his employer. To understand this, think: Would Dobby feel any remorse about telling Harry secrets of Hogwarts (location of rooms, secret passages, etc)? I think not, because Dumbledore it's not his master, just his employer, and there is a radical difference between them." If Dobby did once belong to the Potters, then of course Dobby wouldn't hesitate to tell Harry everything he knew about the workings of Hogwarts, bc he'd be acting like a Potter house-elf. :) Maybe Dumbledore has no problems with treating Dobby like a regular employee bc he knows that Dobby used to belong to the Potters, and therefore, Dobby would want to be as close to Harry as he could get; since Harry is still too young(?) to own a house-elf, this is the best Dobby can do to in order to fulfill his duty, and Dumbledore might want Dobby close to Harry as well, bc of the "beholdened to one family, forever" thing. Because of that, he himself will never truly own Dobby, but to keep him close to Harry, he goes ahead and hires him, agreeing to Dobby's preferences. But didn't the Malfoys own Dobby? Well, maybe they thought they did, but Dobby's always messing up along with his rather open act of 'rebellion' in CoS suggests to me that as far as HE was concerned, they were simply a subtitute or host family, until Harry was old enough to take him on. Please keep in mind that I may be totally wrong about this whole thing. Maybe Grey Wolf is right, or maybe we're both wrong and there's a whole other explanation altogether. PD: All this post is based on the idea that a good house-elf is the one that is faithful to his master. True. I am just wondering who Dobby's master truly is. -kel -- __________________________________________________________________ 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/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kendra_grant at fantasysales.net Fri Mar 22 04:11:05 2002 From: kendra_grant at fantasysales.net (Kendra Grant-Bingham) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:11:05 -0500 Subject: Dobby servant for life In-Reply-To: <1016724691.4465.52317.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020321231025.00a78590@mail.fantasysales.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36845 kellybroughton said >"It state in COS chapter two--- "The Wizard family >Dobby serves, sir... DObby is a house-elf... bound to >serve one house and one family forever."~~~~~ Yes.....bound to serve one house forever.....but what if the senior members of that family are killed.....and the infant is sent to live with a Muggle family? What becomes of the house elf then? I would certainly hope that he isn't killed or bannished! Put to work for another family is more to my liking. --- Kendra Grant-Bingham ~~~~~Phoenix Moonshadow Wych~~~~~ "Gryffindor House ...where Friendship and Bravery count." From ecuamerican at hotmail.com Fri Mar 22 06:04:18 2002 From: ecuamerican at hotmail.com (ecuman24) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 06:04:18 -0000 Subject: Wands& Phoenix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36846 Edblanning at a... wrote: >>I don't think we have evidence that the feathers themselves are >> bad/good.<< And Finwith says: > And I don't believe a wand - or wand-incredient can be "good" > or "evil" --- just because Mr. Psycho uses a knife to kill doesn't > make his knife evil, does it? Wand's a tool - and tools don't have > good/evil intentions! > > But "Wand chooses a wizard" - and "you don't get as good results > with someone elses wand as you do with your own". Well I don't think that a wand is just "a tool" like a knife is to a psycho. A wand is more than that. It is sort of alive in a way. After all, you also mention Olivander's famous quote of "its the wand that chooses the wizard." Well does a knife choose its killer? The wand has a mind of its own, to some degree. It reminds me of Mr. Weasley's advice to Ginny and Harry about "Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where it keeps its brain." I began this thread of Harry's and Voldemort's wands being "good and evil." I still stand by the idea of it and the brotherhood that the wands share: the one evil brother rising to power and the deserving brother triumphing later over him (post # 36717). Wands are not merely any tools for they augment the magic of the wizard. And the wands in this Universe have a predetermination to who they go to. Well, not really but something to the sort. Now, I'm not also saying that they totally control the wizard but they give the wizard potential. Its up to the wizard what deeds he will do or not do. It just all goes back to the question of why 2 feathers and why from Fawkes. And that is where my ramblings always stop. Your friendly neighborhood Ecuamerican, Juan From ffionmiles at hotmail.com Fri Mar 22 12:13:44 2002 From: ffionmiles at hotmail.com (ffimiles) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:13:44 -0000 Subject: Questions about history or families In-Reply-To: <20020322030332.89694.qmail@web10905.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36847 Re : Families - it is strange that the Potters haven't been mentioned - when Harry looks in the mirror of Erised, he sees people who resemble him, but these have never emerged - JKR did say we'll find out more about harry' family in the OotP - questions, that Harrys hould've thought to ask, will be answered - so perhaps the family thing will be sorted out ... Ffi From lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 22 12:24:54 2002 From: lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com (Ms Lizard Gizzard) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 04:24:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Height - was Dobby's In-Reply-To: <3C9A0A9D.E58E6E76@email.unc.edu> Message-ID: <20020322122454.78827.qmail@web13502.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36848 --- Betty wrote: > snippedy snip > How tall's Harry, 4.5 to 5 feet, maybe? I know Harry's probably not big for his age, owing to the Dursley's treatment of him, but do you really think he's that short? Most of the 13 year olds I know are in the 5' to 5'6" range. > Betty, who is starting already to realize the > adictive power of actually posting to this group. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards http://movies.yahoo.com/ From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Fri Mar 22 13:19:55 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:19:55 -0000 Subject: Winky: was Re: Dobby servant for life In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20020321231025.00a78590@mail.fantasysales.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36849 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kendra Grant-Bingham wrote: > Yes.....bound to serve one house forever.....but what if the senior > members of that family are killed.....and the infant is sent to live with > a Muggle family? What becomes of the house elf then? I would certainly > hope that he isn't killed or bannished! Put to work for another family is > more to my liking. Right, and I keep seeing Winky going to the Weasleys. Nothing cannon to it, I just see Winky and Molly as sort of soul-mates. I see Molly reacting to Crouch-Moody's confession very much the way Winky did. In fact, Molly seems to have a sense of duty much like the house elves in general. Hmm... Tex From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Fri Mar 22 13:44:00 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:44:00 -0000 Subject: Is Dobby a good house elf? In-Reply-To: <460301FC.4D27AA36.B13B89B9@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36850 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., kellybroughton at n... wrote: > PD: All this post is based on the idea that a good house-elf is the one > that is faithful to his master. > > True. I am just wondering who Dobby's master truly is. > Well, at the moment, I'd say Dobby's master is Dobby. That's how slaves were free in the American ante-bellum South. He's a free agent, now. In fact, he may be eligible for OoP membership. So far as we can tell, Dobby didn't do anything to serve Draco while he was a Hogwarts, before Harry set him free. Hogwarts may have a rule against students having house-elves, or Narcissa would have sent him with Draco in his first year. Dobby probably wouldn't help Harry's with his student life, due to this rule. Also, Winky didn't help Crouch, Jr. operate against hid father's wishes, unless inadvertantly. Tex From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri Mar 22 14:37:47 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:37:47 -0000 Subject: Polyjuice workings/Snape's reaction to Prank)( was: Shack Flints/Dragons/Trelaw) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36851 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > > Catlady: > > > In my own view of the Potterverse, 16-year-old Severus feels as > > humiliated and as resentful of the humiliation as in your [Marina's] > > theory, but > > all he did to be ashamed of was that he (finally!) ran away, leaving > > Potter behind him, between him and the onrushing werewolf > Eloise > I like this version! I think he would be very ashamed of running away. Even > more ashamed that he had let himself be tricked, but very ashamed of running > away, nevertheless. I prefer it to Marina's vision of his turning into a > quivering lump of jelly. Heh. I knew nobody would like my version. But why would Snape be ashamed of running away? Seems to me that running away and leaving the other guy to be eaten by the werewolf is the perfectly correct Slytherin thing to do, particularly when the other guy is a stupid Gryffindor who got you both into this mess in the first place. Oh, sure, the kids from other houses might grumble about cowardice, but what do they know? The Slytherins, on the other hand, would've all patted Snape on the shoulder and said, "Good job, Sev, but next time remember to Stupefy the Gryffindor git before you leave him as werewolf bait." And they're the only ones whose opinion matters, right? No, I think the only way Snape would feel any shame about his reaction to the Prank would be if he had reacted in a way that damaged his dignity. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From Edblanning at aol.com Fri Mar 22 15:18:25 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:18:25 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark Mark and DEs /Snape's reaction to the Prank... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36852 Elkins: > Eloise, Porphyria, and Amanda were having a really fascinating > conversation last week about Dark Marks, DEs, scars, and a whole > lot of great Snapestuff. I was particularly sorry to miss out on > it because I would very much have liked to direct people to an old > message of Porphyria's, #35386, on the subject of scars: Harry's, > Snape's, and how the two might relate to one another thematically > as well as plot-wise. > Eloise Hi, Elkins! I wondered where you'd been. I'll leave in this ref to Porphyria's message because I couldn't find it when I wanted to refer to it and I thought it was particularly good. I'm going to do lots of snipping. Your post is an excellent summary of things as they stand regarding the theory of Dark Marks, so take it as read that I agree absolutely with anything that I don't comment on. Elkins: My feeling about this is that in GoF, Voldemort is willing the Dark > Marks to reappear in visible form because he *wants* the DEs to know > that he's coming. With the exception of a very few loyalists, they > all betrayed and abandoned him; while he was languishing in his > strange neither-dead-nor-alive nether-state for thirteen years, weak > and helpless, they all just went back to their nice cushy lives. > Most of them were probably secretly relieved to be free of him in the > first place, very few of them are going to be truly happy to see him > back, and he knows it. And that *infuriates* him. He is going to > forgive most of them for it -- because really, what other choice does > he have? He needs followers, and disloyal though the DEs may be, > they're still the only one's he's got -- but he wants to make them > Yes, that sounds to me like the way he'd work. > > > So that's my suggestion as to why the Dark Marks are reappearing in > visible form throughout GoF. It also explains why they start to fade > away after the graveyard convocation. Voldemort stops paying > attention to them after graveyard. The DEs all know for sure that > he's back now, so he can stop concentrating on that. I suspect that > by the end of the school term, they'd vanished from normal sight > I think this is a good explanation, completely at one with my contention that they *cannot* be visible at all times under normal circumstances. Circumstamces aren't normal during GoF. Elkins: > Eloise wrote: > > > But I find it curious that Voldy examines Wormtail's arm for his > > ('It has come back') in the graveyard, when Snape's and Karkaroff's > > have been visible for some time. > > My interpretation here is that by "It has come back" Voldemort > meant: "It has now come back *completely.*" In other words, now that > he is fully reincorporated, his will has become strong enough to > bring the dark mark back to *full* visibility, which means that it > will also be strong enough to summon the DEs to his side. I don't > think that he could have summoned them in his slimy baby form even if > he had wanted to. . Eloise: I think this has to be the only explanation. But he doesn't word it very well. Elkins: As to the question of how the dark marks normally served as a means > of identification among DEs, though, I find the notion that it wasn't > necessarily visual at all, but instead tactile or some form of more > mystical recognition believable. I also find it perfectly likely > that it *was* visual, but normally under the conscious control of > those bearing the mark, thus allowing one to "show" the mark to > others when this seemed called for, while ordinarily keeping it > safely hidden. This of course would do little to ameliorate the > friendly fire problem that Eloise suggested, but it would at least > help in preventing infiltration. Tingling would indeed work better, > but I don't know that I believe that Voldemort and the DEs were > necessarily all that canny. > Eloise I've wondered about this conscious control idea, too. But I still find the idea of *showing* your DM to someone a bit too risky. I mean you have to *know* already that they are on your side, don't you? It would work in those circumstances, as proof perhaps to a well-known DE that an unknown rookie really was who he said he was, but the idea of all these DEs going round saying 'I'll show you mine if you show me yours' doesn't really wash. The good old password would be much safer. But as you say, Voldy and the DEs do seem to be short of nous. However did Snape get mixed up in that shower? New theory of Snape's defection. He was simply fed up of working with morons. Elkins, quoting (?Porphyria) > > Boy, I hope JKR is thinking this through as well as we are. ;-) > > I hope that she isn't. Without the inconsistencies, what on earth > would we have to talk about? > > Besides, if she's thinking through this stuff nearly as > Exactly. I have a horrid suspicion that is exactly *because* she's thinking things through neurotically ( because she's got wind of the fact that there are these strange obsessives out there who apparently have nothing better to do than conduct endless convoluted conversations about her work) that we haven't yet got Book Five. Elkins: As to the question of whether or not Snape's clutch at his arm during > the staircase encounter in "The Egg and the Eye" was due to some Mark > Tingling action caused by the presence of fellow mark-bearer Crouch... > > Oh, ugh! No! That's unspeakable! I totally reject that notion. I > reject it because...um...er... > > instinctive emotional reaction> > > Because if that had been the case, then surely Snape would have > recognized the particular *nature* of the tingle or the burn or > whatever. He would have told Dumbledore about it immediately, just > as he'd been keeping Dumbledore informed throughout GoF on the status > of his own dark mark and of Karkaroff's. Dumbledore therefore would > have suspected Moody much sooner, he would have taken some form of > action, and the entire tragedy would have been averted. > > Okay. So that's not really canon at all, but merely extrapolation. > But all the same, I really do think it unlikely that it would have > Eloise: I think you're right, although not telling Dumbledore would tie in with my observation about Snape not being a team player at certain significant moments. I doubt this is the case here, as we know that he is keeping Dumbledore informed about the state of his and Karkaroff's DMs. In addition to which in GoF, I have difficulty assigning a role to Snape (He's not trying to protect anyone or anything or catch anyone in particular). It seems to be a book where we learn about him, rather than his having much part in the plot itself... I think... I need to go away and think about this. Elkins: > Also, I don't believe for a moment that Crouch would have taken that > risk. Whether or not all of the DEs know that Snape's in with > Dumbledore these days, I think it quite clear that Crouch himself > did -- or at least that he strongly suspected it. I can't imagine > that he would have sent Snape a little "Hi! I'm a Death Eater too! > R U Available?" tingle, just for the sake of some casual sadism. I > mean, the man may have been slightly off his rocker, but he wasn't a > Eloise: No, but he was a terrible show-off. He goes through the whole book telling us what he's doing. > > Porphyria: > > > I really like the idea of Snape's having properly hysterical pain > > there, especially since he acts ashamed of reacting to the pain, as > > if it shows up a weakness. > > Yes. That's my primary reason as well. For heaven's sake, that scene > is one of the few places in all canon where poor Severus stakes a > claim on some pure and undiluted reader sympathy! If you guys want > to water down his one unequivocal demonstration of overwhelming and > deeply-felt shame about his past, then you can go ahead, I guess, but > I'm not helping. Eloise: No, no. I *want* readers to be sympathetic to Snape. You know that. > Elkins: > I also found Eloise's defense of the notion that "And then I ask > myself, but how could they have believed I would not rise again?" > really means, "They knew I couldn't be dead, how could they think I > wouldn't regain my powers?" to be perfectly convincing. > > Porphyria objected that if this were indeed the case, then it would > seem highly unlikely for the DEs to grant their allegiance to > Dumbledore, which is what Voldemort accuses them of in the graveyard, > as Dumbledore could bring about their own deaths. > > I'm not quite sure that I agree. Dumbledore is widely believed to be > the most powerful wizard alive, right? And he worked with Flamel on > the alchemical work which led to the discovery of the Philosopher's > Stone. I think that if I were Voldemort, Dumbledore would be the > very *first* on my list of people I'd suspect my disloyal, selfish, > lusting-after-the-secrets-of-eternal-life Death Eaters to turn to, > after I myself had vanished. It's not merely the fact that > Dumbledore's the arch-enemy that leads to that accusation, in my > opinion, but also the fact that from Voldemort's point of view, > Dumbledore is a potential *rival* in the Promising To Grant Eternal > Life To Followers game. This is Voldemort, remember. He probably > comprehends the notion of rejecting eternal life about as well as he > understands that whole Protective Power of Self-Sacrificing Love > thing. Those sorts of concepts really do seem to be somewhat beyond > Eloise: And these are people who are out for themselves, remember, whose lives are not in danger, by Amanda's theory *as long as Voldy lives* - in some form or another. They don't care about right and wrong, good and evil. Sirius accuses Wormtail of wanting to be allied to the biggest bully in the playground. Well, perhaps with Voldy out of the way, that's how they'd see Dumbledore. I suspect that's how Voldy sees him: the bully who wants to spoil all his fun with his high-minded ethical ideas. Elkins: > So I don't have that problem. I do have one cause for hesitation > before wholeheartedly embracing Amanda's theory, though, which is > that to my mind, if the relationship between Voldemort and the Death > Eaters binds them in life and death, then it would also seem likely > to me that it would bind their magical power as well. I would expect > for the Death Eaters to have lost a good deal of their magical > abilities when Voldemort was discorporated, and to have remained > relatively weak for all of those years while he lingered on in his > impotent state. And while I can certainly accept Eloise's suggestion > that the reason that none but the looniest of the DEs ever tried to > find Voldemort because from their point of view, Voldemort alive -- > but also powerless, safely hidden away, and out of their hair -- was > a win-win situation, I find that notion a bit harder to swallow if > alive-but-powerless Voldemort also means alive-but-powerless Death > Eaters. If that were the case, then I think more of them would have > Eloise: Good point, but I'm not sure that we *have* to equate the DM with power, do we? > > Eloise wrote: > > > Ooh, Amanda....you've made me go all quivery. I might have to go > > and lie down for a bit. I wonder if Elkins still has that brandy? > > Help yourself, but I'm warning you: Cindy put something in it. You > drink this stuff, and the next thing you know, first you'll be > telling perfect strangers all about your most embarrassing childhood > experiences, and then you'll find yourself jumping up and down on the > couch, screaming things about bloody ambushes. > > But if you're willing to take that risk... brandy> Here you go, kiddo. Eloise ( draped in pink featherboa): I was wondering how that flamingo ended up dead. Oh...and here's one for George. Have fun, Marina! Elkins > On a somewhat related topic, I've been wondering for some time now: > what do people make of Voldemort's cheerful naming of names in the > graveyard? I mean, Lucius Malfoy is one thing -- *everybody* knows > that Malfoy is a Death Eater -- but people like Avery? Nott? > MacNair? I don't get the impression that those guys were necessarily > so high-ranking that the entire DE circle would have known their > identities. I *particularly* don't believe this about Avery, who > since he was one of Snape's contemporaries had to have been quite > Eloise: But they *are* known, aren't they, to an extent? When Harry names them as being in the circle, Fudge responds that he is repeating names he could have found in court transcripts, people whose names had been cleared. DEs who had been careless enough to get caught, but had managed to get off through disowning their master and deserved to be shamed. Which, I think, is more or less what you go on to say. Elkins: > I find it telling, for example, that while Voldemort does name the > Lestranges (whose cover has already been blown sky-high), he never > once speaks Crouch Jr.'s name, nor those of the "coward" and > the "traitor." Now, this is obviously primarily an authorial matter - > - JKR wants to keep us guessing -- but I also think that it makes a > certain degree of in-character sense: Voldemort isn't yet *certain* > about what's going on with the suspected coward and traitor, and > before he knows for sure that they really aren't both loyal and > potentially useful to him, he's not going to put them at risk by > Eloise: Which brings us back to that whole thing about whether Snape is able to continue his role as a spy. Elkins: Similarly, he obscures Pettigrew's identity > by referring to him only as "Wormtail." This may be simply because > that's just what Voldemort calls him, but it strikes me that it might > also be a precaution: Wormtail may have been disloyal enough to merit > some punishment, but he's also been loyal enough to merit a rather > large reward, and for the time being, Voldemort's clearly planning on > keeping him around as some kind of lieutenant -- or at the very > least, as his personal valet. It seems quite possible to me that he > really didn't want to reveal the man's real name to the entire DE > Eloise: I suppose you may be right, although I took it just that he enjoyed using what is really a very demeaning sounding name for the pathetic little rat. Although I do respect him for cutting off his hand, in a way. I mean, I couldn't do it. Elkins: > Of course, I do realize that my reading here is more a little bit > weasel-like ("See, the reason that he names Avery and Nott is to > *punish* them, and to make them all the more dependent on him, but > the reason that he names *Malfoy,* see, is because Malfoy's an > *important* Death Eater, so everyone knows his identity already, > and..."). Nonetheless, I find myself believing in it. > > Eloise: Mmm...that Lucius Malfoy. Everybody knows he was one of Voldy's biggest supporters, yet he gets away with it. FIE! Elkins > Oh, and I'm definitely in with SUCCESS. But I'll take my juice glass > with Dumbledore's fingerprints all over it, if you don't mind. I > don't think that Snape would have allowed Quirrell anywhere *near* > his pumpkin juice. > > And besides, I like imagining Dumbledore spiking the juice. > Twinkling as he did so, no doubt. (Does anyone but me ever kind of > Eloise: Take your juice glass as you like, my dear. I actually quite like the pathos of Quirrell managing it. Let's face it, we are talking about the wizard who can't student- (or Crouch-) proof his office. Maybe he knew that Snape always retired to his office for a cuppa (those yellow teeth, again!) after dinner, so he just broke in and dropped something in the tea pot! I mean, *why* would Dumbledore disable him? If he did, it implies that he *knew* Quirrell was going to make an attempt then, so *why* go off to London and then come racing back, saying ( in effect) that he had suddenly realised that he ought to be at Hogwarts rescuing Harry? It doesn't make sense to me. No, I don't want to hit Dumbledore. I fact, I think I should rather like to have known him as a young wizard. Now, I think he is the kind of person it could be fun to grow old with. But that might be because it's my birthday and old age is on my mind. > -- Elkins, who doesn't know about Diana, but who certainly doesn't > think that George has any problems with the idea that the DEs are an > elite group. Certainly *her* SWEETGEORGIAN version of Snape was no > wimpy, wishy-washy fellow-traveller. "Eyes Open" is, after all, part > . Eloise: Oh, yes, Diana likes her Snape to have been Very Bad Indeed. Now I have to try to remember what my acronym stands for. What was it again? Giving Evil Overlord's Regime Genuine Effort, Severus' Soul Is Severely Troubled Eventually Rendering Defection Indeed A Necessary Act. I had to look that up. Yes, it's part of the tenet. He went in eyes open and tried to be a good DE, because at that time he didn't buy into all that moral guff that Dumbledore had tried to din into his head at school. He'd decided on the road he was taking. ( I'm always reminded of that song : Poor Jenny, bright as a penny/ Her equal would be hard to find/ Deserved a bed of roses, but history discloses/ That she would make up her mind.... He's always making up his mind, and when he does, he's so often wrong.) On the other hand, are you saying that *none* of the DEs are wimpy and wishy-washy? I don't think Crouch Jr would agree! And a footnote Amanda: >Oh, thank you! Nobody seems to be responding to my commentary, and I thought >my postings might be going to the Great Beyond instead of the list--there's >often times when I don't *get* all the posts. Some Yahoo hiccup, I imagine. Elkins: >> So okay. Amanda's convinced me. >Yaaay! Somebody thinks I make sense! Even us old guys need an attaboy >occasionally! :::does happy dance::: Eloise: So that's why you didn't get more involved in the conversation! Even after you'd got me into such a state that I needed Elkins' spiked brandy. (That was before Porphyria got in the Scotch, of course. And yes, I was on the Laphroaig last night, but my favourite is the Lagavulin. What very good taste you have, Porphyria!). Yes, you've been an inspiration! ......................... Marina (on Snape's reaction to the prank): >Heh. I knew nobody would like my version. But why would Snape be >ashamed of running away? Seems to me that running away and leaving >the other guy to be eaten by the werewolf is the perfectly correct >Slytherin thing to do, particularly when the other guy is a stupid >Gryffindor who got you both into this mess in the first place. Oh, >sure, the kids from other houses might grumble about cowardice, but >what do they know? The Slytherins, on the other hand, would've all >patted Snape on the shoulder and said, "Good job, Sev, but next time >remember to Stupefy the Gryffindor git before you leave him as >werewolf bait." And they're the only ones whose opinion matters, >right? >No, I think the only way Snape would feel any shame about his reaction >to the Prank would be if he had reacted in a way that damaged his dignity. Eloise: Reading this makes me feel like that bloke Dave, on the Fast Show, who changes his mind to agree with everything the last person said. I suppose I think that Snape *does* see himself as Tough and that running away, although really the only option in the circumstances, would involve a loss of dignity. He was in no - win situation, wasn't he, and I think that might dent the dignity, too, not being able to choose his own course of action. Eloise. 'But why, Severus', said Dumbledore sadly, 'why did you have to follow him in the first place?' [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From christi0469 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 22 15:24:35 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:24:35 -0000 Subject: Dobby servant for life In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20020321231025.00a78590@mail.fantasysales.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36853 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kendra Grant-Bingham wrote: > kellybroughton said > >"It state in COS chapter two--- "The Wizard family > >Dobby serves, sir... DObby is a house-elf... bound to > >serve one house and one family forever."~~~~~ > But house-elves do sometimes have to be relocated, or ther we be no Office for House-Elf Relocation (FB&WTFT)for Newt Scamander to work in. It doesn't happen very ofter, as the years he worked there were "tedious in the extreme", but it must happen. I imagine that house-elves normally transfer like any other property after the death of an owner and would go to the next of kin, but could not in Harry's case, as he is a minor going into the care of Muggles. Perhaps the Malfoy's would had to pay for Dooby, and that money (less a transaction fee to the House-Elf relocation Office) would have gone into Harry's account, and Dooby's relationship with the Potter's would have been legally severed. Legally, Dobby would have belonged to the Malfoy's. Of course, Dobby may just have belonged to the Malfoy's all along, but I can see him having belonged to the Potter's. Christi From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Mar 22 17:40:40 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 17:40:40 -0000 Subject: Polyjuice workings/Azkaban's location In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36854 > Eloise: > Which brings me back to the problems I always have with Mrs Crouch. How on > earth did a dying woman manage that? It's hard enough to believe that she > actually managed to drink some within an hour of death, without adding > problems of preparation. > > Eloise Dementors are blind, and cannot distinguish between humans. They sensed a human inside the cell, and that was good enough for them (you don't play with your food, nor argue with it, and that's what dementors think of human: we aren't alive, were just the coffee-machine that serves their snacks: feelings). I think that when Mrs. Criuch died, one of the dementors just took her out to the back garden and buried her (or threw her into the sea, or whatever). I don't imagine that many DE receive visits while in Azkaban (Sirius receided one visit in 12 years, and he was important), so no human actually noticed the change. While on the subject, the Lexicon places the prison of Azkaban in an island in the North sea. However, when I recently re-read PoA, Sirius mentions that he was near Privet Drive because "Couldn't pass up the opportunity of looking up Harry **before starting his trip North**" (trip towards Hogwarts were he knew he could find Peter)(liberal translation form my own language). I don't think that Sirius had that much free time that he could cross twice England (from North to South and back again) just for the pleasure of Harry's company. I think it would fit better that Azkaban was in the Sea SOUTH of England, and thus Sirius just had to make a small de-tour to visit Harry. Another point is that we know that Sirius scapes the prison one or two days before Harry runs away from Privet Drive (it's still fresh news: the Dursleys act mildly surprised about it), and it would take Sirius' dog form quite a bit longer to reach a beach and get to London if starting from the North, but would be quite easier to do so from the South. I suppose he could have apparated, but we have no canon evidence of Sirius knowing how to apparate (although why then he has to run to Hogwarts in dog form instead of just apparating in Hogsmeade escapes me). In conclusion: I believe Azkaban is actually in an island south of England (isle of man? my geography, specially the one outside my country, is not very extense) Anyway, I'm sure there must be a few holes in the theory, so let me know what you feel about it. I would be grateful if someone could actually find the original text for me (it's PoA, ch. "Wormtail, Prongs, Moony, Padfoot", I think) Hope that helps, Grey Wolf (He who started writting this post preocupied because it was going to be a one-liner. ALso, he who was VERY wrong) From ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 22 18:43:36 2002 From: ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com (Melanie Brackney) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:43:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Magic Outside of School and FLIRTIAC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020322184336.89680.qmail@web10906.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36855 My theory on Hermione is quite simply that she asked the school if she may practice simple spells before school so that she was more than ready in the fall. I also think that Harry is under tight supervision especially considering Voldie is in town. And as for the Weasley boys, well there may be certain types of wizarding charms that are allowedfor practicing. And perhaps the ones that Harry(or Dobby) has used are not covered by that clause. Just a thought. I think it would be a wonderful question to ask JKR sometime! elfundeb at aol.com wrote: In a message dated 3/20/2002 10:43:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, huntleyl at mssm.org writes: > Of course, they aren't allowed to use magic outside of school -- Well, after Elkins' fabulous still-life (which I'm deeply contemplating with my own memory-charmed mind), the scope of the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery seems quite trivial, but I'm working on a possible new Snapetheory to which the legality of his learning all those curses before he showed up to Hogwarts may (or may not) be relevant. But the prohibition on underage magic seems a tad haphazard in its application -- may indeed be a bit flinty -- and the recent posts about Dobby have prompted me to subject the law and its application to a little analysis. First, the prohibition seems to apply very haphazardly. Dobby uses a hovering charm and Harry gets a warning owl from the very intimidating Mafalda Hopkirk of the Improper Use of Magic Office stating very specifically that underage wizards are not allowed to perform spells outside of school and risk expulsion for doing so. He also runs afoul of a Statute of Secrecy prohibiting magical activity that risks notice by Muggles. That all sounds very reasonable. But others are performing plenty of magic outside of school. With all the charmed wands and Ton-Tongue Toffees that the Weasley Twins have been busy concocting (not to mention the teddy bear they transfigured when they were 5), why haven't they been expelled? Doesn't each one require a separate spell? Molly worries about the Improper Use of Magic Office coming after them, but they've gotten away with quite a bit. But the real shocker is that even follow-the-rules Hermione claims on the train to Hogwarts in PS/SS that she's tried a few simple spells and they all worked. I can't imagine that she'd have mentioned this if those spells had resulted in a threat of expulsion from Mafalda, so she must have gotten away with it, or the prohibition didn't apply to her. Finally, the prohibition does not seem to apply to accidental magic. No warning arrived when Harry regrew his hair, or changed the teacher's hair color, or set the boa constrictor on Dudley, though these actions risked notice by Muggles and should have been specifically targeted. How to reconcile all this? I have a few theories: Theory 1. Though Harry's letter does not say so (because he lives in a Muggle home) the restriction does not apply to children living in wizarding households performing magic at home, where they are presumed to be under the supervision of their parents. This explanation is not entirely satisfactory as it does not explain accidental magic. Maybe accidental magic by Harry and other pre-Hogwarts children in Muggle households is just handled by the Accidental Magic Reversal Squad. It also doesn't explain how Hermione avoided censure (and I don't think the supervision of Muggle parents would be satisfactory because one of the purposes of the prohibition is to prevent children attempting magic they aren't ready for that will result in unintended consequences), unless after buying her books in Diagon Alley she settled down at Florean Fortescue's for a quick charms lesson over a huge ice cream sundae. Possible, but I think she would have tackled "Hogwarts - A History" first. No, I think she did her practicing at home. Maybe Hermione had a wizarding mentor, but more likely, IMO, her spells are just a Flint. 2. The second option is that the Office of Improper Magic is a very small operation and poor Mafalda (and what few colleagues she may have -- I imagine one person per shift running this show) can't possibly keep track of all the magic being performed by children all over Britain. So she ignores all the wizarding households and concentrates on magic occurring in Muggle homes and public places. But this still doesn't explain how Hermione got away with it. 3. And there must be a broom-flying, Quidditch-playing exception too, as long as the Muggles don't see you. The next problem is how Mafalda figures out who is performing the magic -- assuming, as I expect, that Arthur Weasley did not get an owl from Mafalda on the mistaken assumption that Harry was cutting Dudley's tongue down to size and cleaning up the Dursleys' fireplace. -- though it's possible that such an owl could have arrived after Arthur left. My theory here is that Mafalda uses a magnified type of Marauder's Map which pinpoints the magic activity as well as the persons present at that location. This still doesn't explain, however, why Harry got charged with Dobby's magic. After all, wouldn't the map show Mafalda that Dobby was in the kitchen with Harry? The answer to that, of course, is that the map only shows humans. Dobby's not human, so he's not on the map. Mafalda sees only Harry and a Hovering Charm in the kitchen and five Muggles in the dining room. So the warning goes out (though you'd think the office would have more sense than to deliver it in front of the Muggles . . . .) And now for the final conclusion: Assuming that the MWPP Marauder's Map works like Mafalda's map (perhaps a large assumption but I'll assume anyway), Mrs. Norris' appearance on the Marauder's Map indicates that she is indeed human. And now I ask Captain Tabouli, will this suffice as a ticket to the FLIRTIAC dinghy? Would it help if I promised that my Snapetheory would include LOLLIPOPS? If I brought refreshments? Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT ________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!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From plumeski at yahoo.com Fri Mar 22 18:49:19 2002 From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 18:49:19 -0000 Subject: Azkaban's location In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36856 "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > While on the subject, the Lexicon places the prison of Azkaban in an > island in the North sea. However, when I recently re-read PoA, Sirius > mentions that he was near Privet Drive because "Couldn't pass up the > opportunity of looking up Harry **before starting his trip North**" > (trip towards Hogwarts were he knew he could find Peter)(liberal > translation form my own language). Perhaps liberal, but nevertheless accurate. :-) "I had only hoped to get a glimpse of you before starting my journey north". > I don't think that Sirius had that > much free time that he could cross twice England (from North to South > and back again) just for the pleasure of Harry's company. I think it > would fit better that Azkaban was in the Sea SOUTH of England, and thus > Sirius just had to make a small de-tour to visit Harry. I've always had the same problem. The Lexicon's placement of Azkaban is based on an out-of-canon JKR comment, and I don't see how it can fit, for the same reasons Grey Wolf listed. > In conclusion: I believe Azkaban is actually in an island south of > England (isle of man? my geography, specially the one outside my > country, is not very extense) The Isle of Man is unlikely. It's tiny (but very much inhabited and a popular tourist destination), and even the small islands around it get a lot of visitors. It would therefore be a poor choice of site for a secret prison for dangerous DEs and even more dangerous Dementors. Incidentally, it's not to the South of England. South of Scotland, perhaps, but West of England (I assume that like a lot of people, Grey Wolf's confusing it with the Channel Islands). :-) Despite JKR's statement about its location being in the northern North Sea, I'd put it somewhere in the English Channel - there are plenty of small rocks there which get little (if any) attention, and it would make a great deal of sense for Surrey to be en route to Hogwarts, rather than for Sirius to travel the length of Britain for nothing more than a glimpse of Harry, especially as he knows that Harry will shortly be back at Hogwarts... Which brings up a different but related matter: why didn't Sirius just make a bee-line for The Burrow and attempt to get his paws on Wormtail there, rather than wait for him to go back to Hogwarts in Ron's pocket? From ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 22 18:55:15 2002 From: ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com (Melanie Brackney) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:55:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Dobby a good house elf? In-Reply-To: <460301FC.4D27AA36.B13B89B9@netscape.net> Message-ID: <20020322185515.91209.qmail@web10907.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36857 You brought up good points...but why wouldn't Dobby tell Harry that in the first place? I mean to be perfectly honest it would have certainly helped Harry to believe him more in the beggining. Just a thought! Melanie kellybroughton at netscape.net wrote: Grey Wolf writes: "Whatever gave you the idea that Dobby is a good house-elf? He's probably the worst house-elf ever, mainly because there is something appart from air or fluff between his ears." In my defense, I was going on a tangent posted in message 36763 by finwitch(?), dealing with the possibility that Dobby *may* have been the Potters' house-elf. When I read that, it just made sense to me somehow, because ever since I learned that Dobby belonged(?) to the Malfoys, I have wondered why Dobby would go to Harry with what he knows. I understand house-elves to be so devoted to their owners to the degree that they pretty much think the same way their masters do/believe everything their masters say (my only reference to this is how Winky reacts when Bagman is mentioned; she vehemently states that "Mr Bagman is a very bad wizard!" Not sure if she is simply regurgitating what Crouch says/believes, or if she truly does have some magical knowledge or psychic ability to judge ppl's characters), and the fact that Dobby's behavior is the total opposite of what everyone in the wizarding community would expect of a good house-elf when he goes to Harry without his current owners' knowledge, tells me that he might have belonged to the Potters. Anna(?) writes in message 36776: "On a side note, I think Dobby is being completely honest when he says Harry is a beacon of hope; there's really nothing in the books to suggest that Dobby knew Harry before he met him that first time. In fact, house elves don't seem to be good liars, so unless Dobby is exceptional in that regard, too, I can't buy the previous owner theory." My reasoning explains this due to the fact that Harry was only a baby when the adult Potters got killed; as far as I'm concerned, it takes longer than just the first year of life to actually develop a full personality to be known by. Therefore, Dobby would know more *of* Harry (thanks to the Malfoys, and maybe, the "house-elf network") than actually personally *knowing* Harry himself. "Dobby is a very strange elf, as we all know. He expects to be payed, for one thing, and actually LIKES being free. Whatever his reasons may be, they nevertheless imply that he has thought long and hard about his condition, both before and after his liberation from the Malfoy family. He has reflected on how he was treated and concluded he disliked it, and prefered striking out on his own. Normally, an elf's reaction would be the traditional "whatever the problem is, it's my fault" which is the one Winky takes on every occasion. This second option is the easiest for an elf because it needs no thinking, but Dobby refuses to take it, thus making him very bad at the job of slave (one of the curses of intelligence)." I think I can refute this by going back to the possibility that he used to be owned by the Potters: he remembers how they (maybe) used to treat him, and is able to compare that with how he is currently being treated by his present (substitute) family, and being an intelligent being, has stated a preference. But then again, if he was originally the Potters' house elf, he really CANNOT state a preference and then act on it: to me, he is still kinda acting like he belongs to the Potters (for want of a better description). Knowing that Harry is still alive, and is now in some real danger if he goes back to Hogwarts, he is compelled to do what he can to protect his true master, even though, being so young or whatever, Harry does not truly own Dobby. "In conclussion: Dobby was a very bad slave, and helped Harry as a form of rebellion against his owners (choosing Harry because he had insider's information on which to work and beacuase, being intelligent, he knew Harry was the one to help)." Believe it or not, this is similar to my way of thinking. It does make sense when you think along the lines of Dobby once belonging to the Potters. He IS a very bad slave, as far as the Malfoys are concerned, but if the Potters once owned him, how would they view his behavior? See my above statement, and/or feel free to keep questioning me if you're still confused. "Once liberated, however, he discovers freedom and the horrible danger it brings with it: boredom. thus, he looks for a job, and finds out that, being free, he enjoys what he had been doing all along, except for the slave part, so he gets a job at being a servant but where he doesn't have to put up with being ultimately faithful to his employer. To understand this, think: Would Dobby feel any remorse about telling Harry secrets of Hogwarts (location of rooms, secret passages, etc)? I think not, because Dumbledore it's not his master, just his employer, and there is a radical difference between them." If Dobby did once belong to the Potters, then of course Dobby wouldn't hesitate to tell Harry everything he knew about the workings of Hogwarts, bc he'd be acting like a Potter house-elf. :) Maybe Dumbledore has no problems with treating Dobby like a regular employee bc he knows that Dobby used to belong to the Potters, and therefore, Dobby would want to be as close to Harry as he could get; since Harry is still too young(?) to own a house-elf, this is the best Dobby can do to in order to fulfill his duty, and Dumbledore might want Dobby close to Harry as well, bc of the "beholdened to one family, forever" thing. Because of that, he himself will never truly own Dobby, but to keep him close to Harry, he goes ahead and hires him, agreeing to Dobby's preferences. But didn't the Malfoys own Dobby? Well, maybe they thought they did, but Dobby's always messing up along with his rather open act of 'rebellion' in CoS suggests to me that as far as HE was concerned, they were simply a subtitute or host family, until Harry was old enough to take him on. Please keep in mind that I may be totally wrong about this whole thing. Maybe Grey Wolf is right, or maybe we're both wrong and there's a whole other explanation altogether. PD: All this post is based on the idea that a good house-elf is the one that is faithful to his master. True. I am just wondering who Dobby's master truly is. -kel -- __________________________________________________________________ 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/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT ________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!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri Mar 22 18:56:17 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 18:56:17 -0000 Subject: Azkaban's location In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36858 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "GulPlum" wrote: > Which brings up a different but related matter: why didn't Sirius > just make a bee-line for The Burrow and attempt to get his paws on > Wormtail there, rather than wait for him to go back to Hogwarts in > Ron's pocket? Would Sirius know where the Burrow is? He knows who the Weasleys are from seeing the picture in the paper, but how would he know where they live? Is there a wizarding equivalent of the White Pages? Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From nesbitaa at purdue.edu Fri Mar 22 19:22:14 2002 From: nesbitaa at purdue.edu (oboakk) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:22:14 -0000 Subject: Azkaban's location In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36859 GulPlum: <> Marina: <> Hmmm....another thing that's been bothering me: How did Sirius know where *Harry* lived? And did he really expect he would be able to see him? After all, everyone believed him to be guilty, and I think he would have suspected that people would be trying to protect Harry from him. He could have known about the Dursleys from being friends with James and Lily, but would he have known where they lived and that Harry would be under their care? Any thoughts? Abby From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri Mar 22 19:59:33 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:59:33 -0000 Subject: Azkaban's location In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36860 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "oboakk" wrote: > Hmmm....another thing that's been bothering me: How did Sirius know > where *Harry* lived? And did he really expect he would be able to > see him? After all, everyone believed him to be guilty, and I think > he would have suspected that people would be trying to protect Harry > from him. Well, I don't think he expected to walk up to the front door in human form and be invited in for a cuppa. I think he just wanted a glimpse of Harry, which he did manage to get in his dog form. > > He could have known about the Dursleys from being friends with James > and Lily, but would he have known where they lived and that Harry > would be under their care? The Dursleys have been living at 4 Privet Drive for some time before James and Lily were killed, so it's not too unlikely that Sirius would've known where his friend's relatives lived. How he knew that they were still in the same house 12 years later, and that Harry was living with them, is a good question. Maybe he just decided to take a chance and got lucky. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From plumeski at yahoo.com Fri Mar 22 21:41:11 2002 From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:41:11 -0000 Subject: Azkaban's location In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36861 "oboakk" wrote: > GulPlum: > < just make a bee-line for The Burrow and attempt to get his paws on > Wormtail there, rather than wait for him to go back to Hogwarts in > Ron's pocket?>> > > Marina: > < are from seeing the picture in the paper, but how would he know where > they live? Is there a wizarding equivalent of the White Pages?>> I get the feeling that the Wizarding community doesn't move house much. The Weasleys are an well-established family and appear to be friends of Dumbledore's (or at least part of "the old crowd") - I would expect Sirius to know something about them. > Hmmm....another thing that's been bothering me: How did Sirius know > where *Harry* lived? And did he really expect he would be able to > see him? After all, everyone believed him to be guilty, and I think > he would have suspected that people would be trying to protect Harry > from him. > > He could have known about the Dursleys from being friends with James > and Lily, but would he have known where they lived and that Harry > would be under their care? That was originally an issue in my mind, too. However, when Hargid borrowed the flying motorbike at the beginning of PS/SS, I assume he'd have told Sirius where he was going with it. This is one of the main reasons *I* see for JKR having established whose the bike was - this gives Sirius grounds to know where the Dursleys live. And as surmised above, wizarding folk don't seem to move home much, so he'd assume that the Dursleys wouldn't move from Little Whinging either. Of course, it's a major coincidence that Sirius-dog turns up there just as Harry runs away... :-) -- GulPlum aka Richard From jmmears at prodigy.net Fri Mar 22 22:35:03 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 22:35:03 -0000 Subject: Harry's Height /Cho's a midget? In-Reply-To: <20020322122454.78827.qmail@web13502.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36862 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ms Lizard Gizzard wrote: > > I know Harry's probably not big for his age, owing to > the Dursley's treatment of him, but do you really > think he's that short? Most of the 13 year olds I > know are in the 5' to 5'6" range. My 11 year old son is in the 50% range for his age and is almost exactly 5' tall. In the beginning of CofS it states, "Harry, thought still rather small and skinny for his age, had grown a few inches over the last year." (Chapter 1, CofS). So my assumption is that if 5' is average for an 11 year old boy, then Harry would be in the range of 5'3" for a "rather small" 13 year old (since boys in the 11 to 13 y.o. range seem to do quite a bit of growing). What has always seemed very wierd to me was that in Chapter 13 of the same book Cho Chang is described as being shorter than Harry by about a head. Most girls are close to their eventual adult height by the age of 14 (she's a year older than Harry, right?). I'm mortified to admit that I measured my 13 year old daughter's head (didn't tell her why, of course, since she already has her doubts about my sanity), and it's about 8 1/2 inches long. This would indicate to me that Cho is only about 4 1/2' tall! Since she's a seeker I would expect that she would be relatively small, but wouldn't this make her almost freakishly short? I wonder if JKR thought this through. Jo Serenadust, feeling kind of stupid even bringing this up, but wanting to know if anyone else has thought about this From kellybroughton at netscape.net Fri Mar 22 20:50:33 2002 From: kellybroughton at netscape.net (kellybroughton at netscape.net) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:50:33 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Dobby a good house elf? Message-ID: <4B4A0440.56932C61.B13B89B9@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36863 Melanie Brackney wrote: > >You brought up good points...but why wouldn't Dobby tell Harry that in the first place? I mean to be perfectly honest it would have certainly helped Harry to believe him more in the beggining. Just a thought! >Melanie Maybe he was forbidden to just come out and tell Harry. I remember there were lots of things that Dobby wanted Harry to know, but couldn't just out and tell him... he kept hinting about a bunch of stuff, and Harry kept guessing wrong. Every time Dobby came close to blurting, he would immediately punish himself. That would be my guess. -kel -- __________________________________________________________________ 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 wmj007 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 22 21:56:04 2002 From: wmj007 at hotmail.com (engbama) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:56:04 -0000 Subject: Theories on Privet Drive Safety Zone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36864 Here are my theories on this idea: 1) The ancient magic used to create the protective zone is not something that is done often. Otherwise LV would be more suspicious of its use. (The fidelius charm is used currently but is not apparently something that is used often. LV could break that without the defection of Wormtail.) 2) The "ancient's" methods are no longer in favor for various reasons - perhpas they are difficult or require more time than the average wizard would want to devote to them. LV does not seem to waste time on anything that does not present him with an advantage. Why study all the ancient magic when no one uses more than a portion of it? I *can* derive integrals for calculus but I *don't* do it that often and will look them up in a table if I can. LV would be familiar with the existence of the spell but not necessarily with all the little details. 3) The zone doesn't prohibit magic being used in it - what if the enemy got in and you could use a spell to get rid of him? Perhaps the zone sets off alarm bells whenever magic is used on the premesis - that would explain why Harry got all the warnings from the Improper Use of Magic people. 4) The zone could function as a barrier to those persons who were known (or thought)to be dangerous to Harry. LV, known DE's, and of course the most dangerous Sirius.... well they did think that he was guilty and he couldn't/didn't cross that barricade. 5) A safe zone or fort also requires a watchman or in this case a watch woman. Mrs. Figg is most likely the person in charge of "holding down the fort". (No pun intended.) Let me know what you think. ENGBAMA - ENGineer from AlaBAMA trying to graduate. From huntleyl at mssm.org Fri Mar 22 23:53:22 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 18:53:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Height /Cho's a midget? References: Message-ID: <005501c1d1fc$bfd8ba20$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 36865 Jo Serendust Said: >My 11 year old son is in the 50% range for his age and is almost >exactly 5' tall. In the beginning of CofS it states, "Harry, >thought still rather small and skinny for his age, had grown a few >inches over the last year." (Chapter 1, CofS). So my assumption is >that if 5' is average for an 11 year old boy, then Harry would be in >the range of 5'3" for a "rather small" 13 year old (since boys in >the 11 to 13 y.o. range seem to do quite a bit of growing). What >has always seemed very wierd to me was that in Chapter 13 of the >same book Cho Chang is described as being shorter than Harry by >about a head. Most girls are close to their eventual adult height >by the age of 14 (she's a year older than Harry, right?). I'm >mortified to admit that I measured my 13 year old daughter's head >(didn't tell her why, of course, since she already has her doubts >about my sanity), and it's about 8 1/2 inches long. This would >indicate to me that Cho is only about 4 1/2' tall! Since she's a >seeker I would expect that she would be relatively small, but >wouldn't this make her almost freakishly short? I wonder if JKR >thought this through. Being one of the "little people" I feel obligated to add my own two cents to this matter. I'm about 5' 1or so and I'm pretty sure I won't be growing anymore. *accepting sigh* Anyway, this is short for a female, but not "freakishly", as Jo put it. ^_~ In fact, I've known quite a few women who were actually shorter than me. The thing is, though, if you ask anyone to look at me and then look at, say, my friend Amy ( 4' 10"), they will invariably describe me as smaller/littler/shorter, even though this is not true. Amy is by *no* means overweight. I'm just really, really *little*. Obviously, I don't view myself this way, but other people do a pretty good job of reminding me. (actually, I'm usually given kid's menus and discounts at restaurants, provided I wear baggy clothing or a coat and no make-up, this is sometimes useful, but mostly just embarrassing.) Anyway, my *point* is, you can be skinny and small for your age, but that doesn't mean you're incredibly short. I'm not saying that Harry is actually tall and skinny, or anything, just perhaps he is only a inch or two under average and really scrawny (if there *is* an average at that age...my little brother is around that age. The difference in appearance/height/etc between his classmates is frankly alarming). My brother, for instance, managed to stay shorter than me until he was oh...lemme see..12 or 13? Mind you, this is some achievement. I *used* to be pretty freakishly short -- had a growth spurt. And them BAM! BOOM! The kid is growing like it's nobody's business. This, I understand, is normal for boys. They have a growth spurt a little after the onset of puberty, grow slowly for a few years, have another growth spurt, and then grow slowly again until their around 18 or 19 (which is why they're so short freshman year, but end up towering over everyone by the time they're seniors). Anyway, my brother, who was really little and scrawny until he got his growth spurt going is now alot taller than a head above me, and he's 14 (same as Harry in GoF when Cho is around a head shorter)..and I'm older to him than Cho is to Harry. Therefore, even if Harry hasn't been growing with the same vigor that my brother has, Cho still needn't be *that* short. Oh yeah, lemme see. *whips out her trusty measuring tape* Uh, okay. My head is around 7.5 inches long. Gee, that's still alot, isn't it? Hum. Well, you also have to realize that this is from Harry's POV, and I don't know this is just something that happens to us shorties, but I'm always misjudging other people's heights. I tend to think that I'm at least as tall (if not taller) as most all the other girls I know, when in reality (as is painfully obvious when I look in the mirror with one of them or in a picture or something) I'm *alot* shorter. And even when people *are* actually shorter than me by a significant enough amount that I can like...almost see the top of their heads (at least with my big shoes on), I will routinely say they're about a head shorter than me, when in actuality they really come up all the way to my nose (I do this pretty often). And that's about...3.5 inches. It's all in the perspective, you see -- and it's perfectly reasonable that Cho be 5' and Harry around 5' 4", 5' 5". mmm..well.. laura you're dangerous cause you're honest you're dangerous you don't know what you are well, you left my heart empty as a vacant lot for any spirit to haunt [...] you're an accident waiting to happen you're a piece of glass left there on the beach well, you tell me things you know you're not supposed to you leave me just out of reach [...] who's gonna ride your wild horses? who's drown in your blue sea? who's gonna ride your wild horses? who's gonna fall in front of thee? well, you stole it cause I needed the cash and you killed it cause I wanted revenge well, you lied to me cause I asked you too baby, can we still be friends [...] Heaven knows the doors you opened I just can't close [...] who's gonna ride your wild horses? who's gonna drown in your blue sea? who's gonna taste your salt water kisses? who's gonna take the place of me? U2 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Zarleycat at aol.com Sat Mar 23 00:15:37 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:15:37 -0000 Subject: Remus/Sirius Apology (was: Real Wizards Don't Apologize) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36866 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > Cindy later qualified her rant, by adding: > > > I overlooked perhaps the biggest, most important apology in the books. In my favorite scene > > in my favorite book, no less: > > > "Forgive me, Remus," said Black. > > "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?" > Ah, yes. That certainly *was* a sincere and heart-felt plea for > forgiveness, wasn't it? No attempts to excuse himself, no attempts > to explain himself, no attempts to justify himself -- not even > a "Peter turned me against you!" accusation stuck in there somewhere > as a partial defense. Just a pure and simple request for forgiveness. > > That's hard. That's about as sucking-it-up as apologies get, > really. And coming from someone like Sirius Black, it really means a > lot, don't you think? > > But just look at how Lupin *reacts* to it, will you? Look at his > tone. It's breezy. Light. Casual. Childhood nicknames, "not at > all, old friend." I mean, it's *flippant,* really. It very nearly > borders on the facetious. > > That's how Lupin always signals discomfort or distress. It's similar > to that breezy tone he takes when he talks to Harry about the > dementors, and about Sirius Black, and about the Dementor's Kiss. > It's similar to the tone he takes nearly every time he is forced to > deal with Snape as a colleague. For that matter, it's a relation to > the tone that he's been taking with Peter throughout the Shrieking > Shack scene. Yes, you're right. I had never noticed that before, but that does seem to be the pose or tone that Lupin adopts whenever he is faced with a situation that one might suppose would elicit some sort of strong emotional response. Remus is clearly angry with Peter in the Shrieking Shack scene, but does not express that emotion through raising his voice or via any physical demonstration. Sirius is the more overtly emotional of the two. When reading this chapter, I suppose I have put that down to his whole convict-on-the-run situation. Of course he'd be a bit overwrought. And I always figured that Remus recognized that Sirius was a human powder keg, and was doing his best to keep everything under control. > Cindy wrote: > > > A lot of people have expressed dissatisfaction with this scene, and > > perhaps one reason is that neither character has any good reason to > > be apologizing. Elkins, again: > I don't really think that's it at all. For one thing, I think it is > perfectly reasonable to apologize to a close friend for having > wrongly suspected him of treachery and murder. That represents such > a profound failure of trust that to my mind, it *certainly* warrants > some form of apology. And it particularly warrants an apology from > Sirius, because while Lupin would seem only to have come to believe > Sirius to be a murderous traitor after his arrest, Sirius suspected > Lupin on the basis of no solid evidence at all. It's hard to avoid > the suspicion that Lupin's lycanthropy had something to do with that, > and even if it hadn't, I'm sure that Lupin thinks that it had. I'm > equally sure that Sirius is aware that Lupin would assume that it > had. And really, that's pretty ugly. Given all of that, it seems > perfectly proper to me for Sirius to ask for forgiveness. I don't think that Sirius thought Remus was the traitor because of some latent werewolf hostility. He spent the better part of his time at Hogwarts figuring out and then resorting to the Animagus transformation for Remus' benefit. I'm convinced that Sirius had a blind spot where Peter was concerned. He and James had helped Peter during their school years, so it was second nature to see Peter as a wizard with average skills. Why would the DEs even want him? And, if Peter is discounted, then who else of the circle of friends could possibly be the traitor, except Remus? > No, I think that the reason that so many readers express feelings of > dissatisfaction with that part of the scene is that the tenor of > Lupin's response strikes an off-note. The tone is just all wrong. > It sounds insincere, unconvincing. It sounds a bit like a brush- > off. And that leaves them feeling a certain degree of anxiety that > perhaps things aren't really settled between the two men, that > perhaps there are still some hard feelings there that aren't being > resolved. Yes! Yes! Yes! I've thought this all along, and have written to that effect several times. The whole "I'm sorry, please forgive me" "Sure, as long as you forgive me, too" was way too casual. These mutual requests for forgiveness and the granting of said forgiveness by both parties are all well and good, but it is much too laid-back for what each thought the other did. > No. Even if Lupin isn't holding onto any hard feelings at all, it's > still got to be difficult for him to think of a way to respond, and > so he tries to gloss over his discomfort by offering up a light and > breezy apology right back. I also don't think that he's at all > comfortable with Sirius breaking the Real Wizards Don't Apologize > rule -- it's not really *manly,* you know, to ask quite so earnestly > for another's forgiveness; it's not...well, it's just not *done.* > > He's uncomfortable, and he's embarrassed, and so he descends into > flippancy. > > That's how I read it, anyway. I thought it rather sad, myself. > > The big reconciliation moment of Shrieking Shack isn't that rather > awkward apology at *all,* IMO. > > It's the embrace. Perhaps Remus is more comfortable in expressing emotion through gesture than through words. This moment derives its power precisely because Remus' actions are unmistakable and his intent is unambiguous. The Trio react immeditately with shock and anger because they see this as a betrayal by Lupin. The embrace, I believe, also speaks volumes to Sirius, who is an absolute physical and emotional mess. By acting as he does Remus sends quite a clear message that none of that matters - what matters is that he's now on Sirius' side and the two of them will join forces once again. Marianne From zoehooch at yahoo.com Sat Mar 23 00:17:54 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:17:54 -0000 Subject: My favorite bit of foreshadowing Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36867 I just started my god-knows-how-many-th rereading of Goblet of file, and was struck by this sentence: >From Chapter 1(UK Adult edition, p. 15) Voldemort speaking "... you will have your reward, Wormtail. I will allow you to perform an essential task for me, one that many of my followers would give their right arm to perform ..." And then, from Chapter 32 (same edition, p. 556-557) "And now Wormtail was whimpering. He pulled a long, thing, shining silver dagger from inside his robes. His voice broke into petrified sobs. 'Flesh -- of the servent-- w-willing given -- you will -- revive -- your master.' He stretched his right hand out in front of him -- the hand with the missing finger. He gripped the dagger very tightly in his left and swung it upwards." Harry closes his eyes, but we all know what happpened next. So, that my favorite bit of Rowling foreshadowing an event. I'd enjoy hearing from other readers their favorite bit of foreshadowing. Zoe Hooch From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sat Mar 23 00:32:29 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:32:29 -0000 Subject: My favorite bit of foreshadowing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36868 Zoehooch wrote: I have a lot of favorite bits in this area, but an especially sneaky one is in Padfoot Returns: "I know Dumbledore's brilliant and everything, but that doesn't mean a really clever Dark wizard couldn't fool him --" A lot of the Fake Moody foreshadowing is very good, actually. I also like how Fake Moody tells us the whole evil plot to restore Voldemort after Harry's name comes out of the goblet, but we don't believe him. If turns out that Real Moody really is also Supremely Evil To The Core, well, that *will* be something, won't it? Cindy (still plumping for a Bangy Evil Real Moody theory) From virtualworldofhp at yahoo.com Sat Mar 23 01:34:16 2002 From: virtualworldofhp at yahoo.com (virtualworldofhp) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 01:34:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's Height /Cho's a midget? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36870 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "serenadust" wrote: What > has always seemed very wierd to me was that in Chapter 13 of the > same book Cho Chang is described as being shorter than Harry by > about a head. Most girls are close to their eventual adult height > by the age of 14 (she's a year older than Harry, right?). I'm > mortified to admit that I measured my 13 year old daughter's head > (didn't tell her why, of course, since she already has her doubts > about my sanity), and it's about 8 1/2 inches long. This would > indicate to me that Cho is only about 4 1/2' tall! Since she's a > seeker I would expect that she would be relatively small, but > wouldn't this make her almost freakishly short? I wonder if JKR > thought this through. It's always been my understanding that "about a head taller" usually means that anywhere from the person's top of forehead to top of head reaches the taller person's chin area. That's just how I see it. So, Cho is still short-ish, but not out of range of possibility (I know a 4'11" 18-yr-old girl...) -Megan (feeling rather disgruntled towards those small-statured, abnormally-short people at the moment, as someone who used to be proportionally short but isn't anymore) From landers at email.unc.edu Sat Mar 23 01:32:38 2002 From: landers at email.unc.edu (Betty) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 20:32:38 -0500 Subject: Voldemort has a cruel gift for play on words (was Re: My favorite bit of foreshadowing References: Message-ID: <3C9BDB35.376191B2@email.unc.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 36871 Zoe Hooch: zoehooch wrote: > > I just started my god-knows-how-many-th rereading of Goblet of file, > and was struck by this sentence: > > From Chapter 1(UK Adult edition, p. 15) > > Voldemort speaking "... you will have your reward, Wormtail. I will > allow you to perform an essential task for me, one that many of my > followers would give their right arm to perform ..." > > And then, from Chapter 32 (same edition, p. 556-557) > > "And now Wormtail was whimpering. He pulled a long, thing, shining > silver dagger from inside his robes. His voice broke into petrified > sobs. 'Flesh -- of the servent-- w-willing given -- you will -- > revive -- your master.' > > He stretched his right hand out in front of him -- the hand with the > missing finger. He gripped the dagger very tightly in his left and > swung it upwards." snip end of post You could also add here Voldemort's pun in Ch. 33. He is quite cruel and ironic. The reason I kept all the post above is that it can be seen there. "and for that, you will have your reward, Wormtail. I will allow you to perform an essential task for me, one that many of my followers would give their right hands to perform..." ... "Flesh - of the servant - w-willingly given - you will - revive - your master. " He stretched his right hand out in front of him - the hand with the missing finger. He gripped the dagger very tightly in his left hand and swung it upward." ... "Well, one of them was already at hand, was it not, Wormtail?" Not only does the first quote forshadow the osecond, as Zoehooch pointed out above, but has it struck anyone else how Ironic Voldemort's use of "at hand" is? Has anyone else got examples of Voldemort's irony? But back to the original foreshadowing question. Moody/Crouch, as someone else pointed out, was showing off in the whole book. He basically confessed, as we later find out, in the chamber off the great hall (Ch. 17). "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.. ." Let me clarify here. He didn't *confess*. But he did pretty much outline how he did it, and we never noticed it. *Very* clever on JKR's part. Betty From kellybroughton at netscape.net Fri Mar 22 23:56:20 2002 From: kellybroughton at netscape.net (kellybroughton at netscape.net) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 18:56:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups]Cho's a midget? Message-ID: <35F4BA58.5F85D162.B13B89B9@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36872 "serenadust" wrote: "What has always seemed very wierd to me was that in Chapter 13 of the same book Cho Chang is described as being shorter than Harry by about a head. Most girls are close to their eventual adult height by the age of 14 (she's a year older than Harry, right?)." Going by her last name, I assume that Cho is Asian... would that make any difference in her physical stature? Asian women as a whole tend to be rather slight (I don't want to offend/stereotype!). -kel -- __________________________________________________________________ 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 goddessa80 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 23 00:07:49 2002 From: goddessa80 at yahoo.com (A. Harr) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:07:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Dobby's Master Theory Message-ID: <20020323000749.97096.qmail@web14506.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36873 Here is my take on the Dobby's True Master-- bear with me and feel free to drop a giant pudding on my head if it sounds too off. I stand by Dobby staying as Malfoy's elf. It seems that elves families stay with one family through thier generations (I reference Winky in GOF for this thought--Ch. 21.. she mentions her mom and grandmother also served the crouches). THough true we don't know about Dobby and his family, and his loyalty to Harry does make it seem as if he belongs to him, I think that goes in part with Dobby's well, oddity as an elf. Dobby seems to be a bit of a thinker of the elves. ALl the others are quite focused on thier masters and tasks, he quite likely daydreams. The reason why I think Dobby thinks about alternatives and freedoms is his treatment at the Malfoys during the especially dark period in time when Voldie was in power. Imagine being in the Malfoy manor, a servant, treated almost as bad as Muggles. DE plans all over, plans for murdering, torture... it couldn't have been nice at all. Dobby even states COS about how life for house-elves under Voldemort was terrible. "Dobby remembers how it was when He-Who-Must-Be-Named was at the height of his powers, sir! We house-elfs were treated like vermin, sir! But mostly, sir, life has improved for my kind since you triumphed over He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named. Harry Potter survived and the Dark Lord's power was broken, and it was a new dawn, sir, and Harry Potter shone like a beacon of hope for those of us who thought the Dark days would never end, sir..." Chapter 10, COS. Now, in a world governed by fear and dread, the elves, at the bottom of the ladder, who take care of the people living in fear and inflicting it, got the worst of it all, I think. Hogwarts elves probably had it quite good, knowing they were safe. But the rest? What happens to the elves if their family is eradicated by DEs? SCary thought for them. Harry's defeat of Voldemort was probably rejoiced by millions of House elves, and Dobby, in one of the worst households to be living in during that era, probably rejoiced the most. Obviously life changed for elves after that. Dobby's loyalty to Harry stems from what Harry as a baby accomplished for the elves. Dobby being the odd elf he is, feels a strong pull to Harry because of his victory, and hero-worships him. He goes to Harry because he doesn't want the dark days to return again--he's seems greatly fearful of that. It's like its stuck in his head that if anything happens to Harry the dark lord will return and everything will be awful and frightening again. I wonder what life was like for other house-elves in DE houses... Hogwarts elves and Winky were all in relatively nice places. He doesn't need to be the Potters old elf... and wouldn't he have said something anyways by now? If in reference to his father or his mother? Winky always defends Crouch, so wouldn't Dobby at least mention that he had known Harry's parents? Well, like I said before, feel free to drop a giant puddin on my head if this makes no sense.I have a tendency to ramble and get on my veritable soap box for Dobby, who is actually my favorite non-wizarding character. Possibly cause he reminds me of Gurgi from the Prydain Chronicles by Lloyd Alexander (my favorite books when I was 12). Adrienne __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards http://movies.yahoo.com/ From spottydog at worldnet.att.net Sat Mar 23 01:55:06 2002 From: spottydog at worldnet.att.net (CARRIE MUNGAI) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 17:55:06 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid, Keeper of the Keys References: <20020322024911.30730.qmail@web10906.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <009601c1d20e$2b5ee920$f7a6fea9@s0023817978> No: HPFGUIDX 36874 Melanie Brackney wrote: "Personally I can't see any house that Hagrid would be in besides perhaps Hufflepuff, if he isn't a gryffindor which I think he is. But this whole moral compass think bugs me with Gryffindor. I had a fight with one of my friends about this I would soo dissappointed if it turns out that Pettigrew wasn't a gryffindor, why? Because I think it's too boring to have all the good characters be Gryffindor and the bad characters be Slytherin. But I do wonder about Sirius sometimes...not that he's not good but whether or not he was a Gryffindor. But I think he probably was." I thought Hagrid was in Gryffindor, but I played the online Wizard Challenge Game and that question was asked and the answer was not Gryffindor. The questions are submitted from HP fan and are supposed to be documented, but I've never heard any actual documentation on what house Hagrid was actually in. Anyone? Spottydog From jmmears at prodigy.net Sat Mar 23 03:22:04 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 03:22:04 -0000 Subject: Harry's Height /Cho's a midget? In-Reply-To: <005501c1d1fc$bfd8ba20$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36875 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" wrote: > I said: What > >has always seemed very wierd to me was that in Chapter 13 of the > >same book Cho Chang is described as being shorter than Harry by > >about a head. Most girls are close to their eventual adult height > >by the age of 14 (she's a year older than Harry, right?). I'm > >mortified to admit that I measured my 13 year old daughter's head > >(didn't tell her why, of course, since she already has her doubts > >about my sanity), and it's about 8 1/2 inches long. This would > >indicate to me that Cho is only about 4 1/2' tall! Since she's a > >seeker I would expect that she would be relatively small, but > >wouldn't this make her almost freakishly short? I wonder if JKR > >thought this through. Laura said: > Being one of the "little people" I feel obligated to add my own two cents to this matter. I'm about 5' 1or so and I'm pretty sure I won't be growing anymore. *accepting sigh* Anyway, this is short for a female, but not "freakishly", as Jo put it. I'm *so* sorry, Laura. That was an extremely poor choice of words to describe what I was thinking. I absolutely didn't mean to be insulting. Having been what I always felt was *freakishly* tall in my early teens, I should have known better than to put it that way. Abject apologies. > > Therefore, even if Harry hasn't been growing with the same vigor that my brother has, Cho still needn't be *that* short. It's all in the perspective, you see -- and it's perfectly reasonable that Cho be 5' and Harry around 5' 4", 5' 5". > > mmm..well.. > Well, I agree that if it all played out the way you described it, then Cho wouldn't be all that unusually short. It's just that the way Harry's shortness is emphasized in all the books (Ron even described him as a "midget in glasses" and Trelawney talks about his "mean stature" in GoF), and the way that girls this age have usually matured to their approximate adult height, I kept thinking that Cho must be *really, really* short. Of course, it all depends on your point of view :-). Anyway, I hope I didn't step on too many toes with this. Jo Serenadust, shutting up about height, now From catlady at wicca.net Sat Mar 23 04:08:33 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 04:08:33 -0000 Subject: A quote, and RE: Potter family / The correct Slytherin thing to do Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36876 I found a JKR quote: <> I gloated at it, because to me saying that mentioning Christianity will give the plot away means I'm right in my theory that Harry will die to destroy Voldemort. Here's the citation: "Fantasia: The Gospel According to C.S. Lewis" By Michael Nelson The American Prospect Issue Date: 2/25/02 http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/4/nelson-m.html The teaser in the print version: "What do J.R.R.Tolkien and J.K.Rowling owe to C.S.Lewis? And what do Christian conservatives have against Lewis's publisher?" Melanie Brackney wrote: > But I mean you would think that James Potter would have some living > relatives, grandparents, cousins, parents, siblings? Perhaps there > is some secret reason they are being kept away from Harry? Perhaps > they are just all dead or at St. Mungo's but it got me thinking at > least a little bit. In Book 1, when McGonagall protests against leaving baby Harry with the Dursleys, Dumbledore tells her: "I've come to bring Harry to his aunt and uncle. They're the only family he has left now." To me, that means there is no one alive, not in St. Mungo's "incurable" ward, not in Azkaban, and not a Death Eater, who is related to Harry except those Dursleys. THEREFORE, despite the red hair, Lily was not related to Weasleys, nor to Dumbledore (whose hair was auburn in the CoS flashback). Alas, it doesn't rule out Lily being descended from Riddle, who was not exactly alive. Marina Rusalka wrote: > But why would Snape be ashamed of running away? Seems to me that > running away and leaving the other guy to be eaten by the werewolf > is the perfectly correct Slytherin thing to do, I cannot answered this question half as well as Elkins explained it in her post on 01/31/02 about the wizarding folk's warrior culture. Therefore, a long three paragraph quote: <> <> <> From ravenclawm at aol.com Sat Mar 23 04:53:49 2002 From: ravenclawm at aol.com (ravenclawm at aol.com) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 23:53:49 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Winky: was Re: Dobby servant for life Message-ID: <146.b8acd79.29cd645d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36877 I like the way your thoughts are going. Molly and Winky could keep each other company. Winky would get to know the wizarding world with someone who would treat her with respect and not as a slave. Since the last family she servied die out, with no living families, her loryalty would not lay with anyone. Winky might learn to move on. Who would be more loving and deserving but the Welsey. From rosefee at citynet.net Sat Mar 23 06:23:52 2002 From: rosefee at citynet.net (snapes_rose) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 06:23:52 -0000 Subject: Is Dobby a good house elf/short? In-Reply-To: <20020322025617.68058.qmail@web10907.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36878 Okay this is my second try: (Thanks Judy!) Melanie said: > Dobby is a rebel. I mean that's just the facts, he wants pay, he > took pay, he enjoys time off, he was thrilled to death about > being freed. I just think Dobby is a unique house elf and nothing more! < Dobby just wanted to be treated better. Remember in GoF how the Trio had gotten to the Kitchen and Dobby had mentioned his pay and free time? Then he mentioned also that Dumbledore had offered him a whole lot more money as well as more off time, but Dobby actually took the lesser cause he does like serving, he just doesn't wanted to be treated badly. Okay those are my two knuts SnapesRose From catlady at wicca.net Sat Mar 23 08:50:46 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 08:50:46 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, Keeper of the [Gryffindor] Keys In-Reply-To: <009601c1d20e$2b5ee920$f7a6fea9@s0023817978> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36879 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "CARRIE MUNGAI" wrote: > I thought Hagrid was in Gryffindor, but I played the online Wizard > Challenge Game and that question was asked and the answer was not > Gryffindor. The questions are submitted from HP fan and are > supposed to be documented, but I've never heard any actual > documentation on what house Hagrid was actually in. Anyone? JKR's Barnes and Noble interview October 2000: http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/October_2000_Live_Chat_Barnes _Noble.htm Q: What house was Hagrid in? JKR: Hagrid was in Gryffindor, naturally! This is interesting. I knew that was in one of her interviews, but I didn't remember which, so I tried Mike the Goat's usually very helpful search engine at http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ but I wasn't sure what words to search for... trying for 'Hagrid' AND 'House' found so many hits that I was quite lost. So I went to Steve's Lexicon at http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/index.html and looked up Hagrid: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/hagrid.html and found: "House: Gryffindor (BN)" so I went to look up BN in the Sources: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/site_sources.html and found: Barnes & Noble.com October 2000 (BN) That was a hyperlink but I got 'Netscape is unable to locate the server www.hpnetwork.f2s.com' when I clicked. But now that I knew which interview I wanted, I went back to Mike's site to find his copy of it. From lav at tut.by Sat Mar 23 11:41:00 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:41:00 +0200 Subject: McGonagall Location On Oct 31, 1981 Message-ID: <6728653242.20020323134100@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 36880 Greetings! --- Cut from Harry Potter Lexicon follows: --- > When and where did McGonagall find out from Hagrid that > Dumbledore would be on Privet Drive that next night? > Think over the timeline. Hagrid arrived in Godric's Hollow > very soon after the attack. From that point on, he knew > what happened and had Harry with him. So when did he talk > to McGonagall? And whenever that was, why was she so > totally in the dark about events afterwards? > Picture the meeting. Hagrid has a baby with him and is > flying a motorcycle which everyone knows belongs to Black. > How could she not have known more than she does in Privet > Drive? --- Cit from Harry Potter Lexicon no longer follows. --- I don't know if this subject has been discussed in-depth on the List, as my connection with the List is sparse lately, but I think this topic is not quite correct in the Lexicon. First of all, it's nowhere said nor implied that Hagrid met McGonagall *after* he had visited Godric's Hollow. Theory proposed by Steve does not cover the time period between the moment when Hagrid received the message from Dumbledore to arrive to Godric's Hollow and his actual arrival there. It was October 31. During this time both McGonagall and Hagrid had to be at Hogwarts. We do not know how did Hagrid get to Godric's Hollow initially, but somehow I don't think it was Hogwarts Express. Apparation is also out of the question - Hagrid cannot apparate (inability to apparate in Hogwarts doesn't come into account because he could simply leave Hogwarts grounds). Broom? Ridiculous. Look at Hagrid and look at a broom. It seems that the only way for Hagrid to get to Godric's Hollow *quickly* was to use the floo network. However means of transportation are not important. What *is* important is the following: both Hagrid and McGonagall are together at Hogwarts for some time, Hagrid knows that he must go there and there, and he also knows that Dumbledore will be at Privet Drive by the evening of November 1. Chances are that if he meets McGonagall at that moment, he will tell her what he knows. But he knows exactly what McGonagall knows at Privet Drive according to the book!. Indeed, look here: she knows that James and Lily are dead, that Harry has survived, that Voldemort has disappeared and that Dumbledore will be at Privet Drive tomorrow evening. From this we can easily deduce approximate text of Dumbledore's message to Hagrid: "Hagrid, get fast to Godric's Hollow, Lily and James are dead, Harry will be there, alive, take him and go to Little Whinging, Privet Drive as fast as you can, I will be there tomorrow evening". Lexicon also states that location of Hagrid is unknown for almost 24 hours. This I will also try to refute. First of all, though he had arrived to Godric's Hollow before muggles, we do not know how long did it really take him. Then we don't know what distance is there between Bristol and Godric's Hollow (it's location is a total mistery - there are no hints about it). And I'm not even sure about Bristol - do you think Hagrid knows muggle cities so well that he easily recognises them *from above*? Godric's Hollow can easily be in Scotland or Ireland. We don't know. And of course we don't know how much time did it take Hagrid to fly from GH to Little Whinging. And how much time did it take him to *find* Little Whinging. Short summary: the only persons whose location is really misterious are Dumbledore and Mrs. Figg. And even for them we can make reasonable guesses. So the final timeline looks as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------ October 31, 1981. In the evening Voldemort arrives to Godric's Hollow, kills James and Lily Potter (I will not touch the problem of their identities) and unsuccessfully tries to kill Harry Potter. Dumbledore somehow knows about the result of Voldemort's access (Scrying spells? Observers? Was he himself there?) and communicates with Hagrid to tell him what to do. Hagrid meets Minerva McGonagall (my version is that he asks her to give him access to Hogwarts floo terminal, but other possibilities exist as well) and tells her what he knows. Hagrid and McGonagall are the two people who most probably started the information spread. Most likely candidate is, of course, Hagrid. Did he meet anybody else? Another suspects are Dumbledore's observers at Godric's Hollow (though their existence is purely my speculation) and Dumbledore himself (after all, he did meet some people that night). November 1, 1981. Hagrid arrives to Godric's Hollow, takes Harry, meets Sirius, borrows his motorcycle. In the morning, rumours start flying in Wizarding Community about Voldemort's fate. In the morning, Minerva McGonagall arrives to Privet Drive and waits until evening (maybe Hagrid forgot to tell her Dumbledore will only be there in the evening?). During whole day, wizards are partying and celebrating. Hagrid either waits with Harry in a safe place or is simply searching for Little Whinging. In the late evening, both Dumbledore and Hagrid (with Harry) arrive to Privet Drive. ------------------------------------------------------------ Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, (Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed), who has stumbled upon a fresh source of origins and feels he now may come back to the newsgroup. Quote: 2,000,000 lemmings can't be wrong. From kendra_grant at fantasysales.net Sat Mar 23 12:42:42 2002 From: kendra_grant at fantasysales.net (Kendra Grant-Bingham) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 07:42:42 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] New thoughts on an old subject In-Reply-To: <1016629907.8049.31653.m8@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020323073337.00a6e0c0@mail.fantasysales.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36881 >I'm going to take a chance here and hope this goes through.*S* I couldn't find, in the short time I have to write this, the reference questions on how Hogwarts is funded. I was looking for something else just now and came across something I hadn't remembered before. In SS, when Harry wakes up in the hospital wing of Hogwarts after fighting with Quirrell/Voldemort, he is talking to Dumbledore about the Sorcerer's Stone. I had forgotten that the stone not only gave the owner everlasting life but also.....ALL THE GOLD/MONEY AS YOU COULD WANT! Now, wouldn't it stand to reason that, somewhere, there is a huge stockpile of gold that is being used to fund Hogwarts? Maybe I'm off in left field on this one, but, as I said, it was just a thought --- Kendra Grant-Bingham ~~~~~Phoenix Moonshadow Wych~~~~~ "Gryffindor House ...where Friendship and Bravery count." From Edblanning at aol.com Sat Mar 23 13:20:21 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 08:20:21 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Polyjuice workings/Azkaban's location Message-ID: <176.58cf687.29cddb15@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36882 In a message dated 22/03/02 17:43:29 GMT Standard Time, greywolf1 at jazzfree.com writes: > Dementors are blind, and cannot distinguish between humans. They sensed > a human inside the cell, and that was good enough for them (you don't > play with your food, nor argue with it, and that's what dementors think > of human: we aren't alive, were just the coffee-machine that serves > their snacks: feelings). I think that when Mrs. Criuch died, one of the > dementors just took her out to the back garden and buried her (or threw > her into the sea, or whatever). I don't imagine that many DE receive > visits while in Azkaban (Sirius receided one visit in 12 years, and he > was important), so no human actually noticed the change. > Yes, dementors are blind. But Crouch Jr specifically states (under Veritaserum) that she was careful to take the potion to the end, so he must at least believed it was necessary. He should know, having been an inmate. In addition, Sirius specifically says that he saw Crouch Jr being buried . Are we to think that there are *only* dementors employed at Azkaban? Dementor administrators? Dementor Governor? The fact that Crouch Jr is so specific in the matter makes me think that there must be the risk of being seen by other humans. Now, where is Azkaban, you ask. I agree that the North Sea seems a bit unlikely. Given where JKR hails from, I would suggest an island somewhere in the Bristol Channel would be suitable. Thus it would be in sight of land, like Alcatraz (similar name??). How it is hidden from the Muggles is another matter, though surely solvable. It could be unplottable, accounting for the fact that known islands like Lundy don't have any sign of a penal colony. On the other hand, as it would be a danger to shipping, it may be cunningly disguised as a sandbank or rocky outcrop. Someone has suggested that you may be confusing the Isle of Man ( where the cats come from) with the Channel Isles. I think perhaps that you were thinking of the Isle of Wight, which *is* just off the south coast, but is also well inhabited and touristy. the general location would work, though. I do think that Azkaban must be invisible to Muggles though, so as I suggested, they would only recognise it as an unihabitable shipping hazard. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gideoner4 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 23 15:08:20 2002 From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (gideoner4) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 15:08:20 -0000 Subject: Harry's Height /Cho's a midget? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36883 What > has always seemed very wierd to me was that in Chapter 13 of the > same book Cho Chang is described as being shorter than Harry by > about a head. Most girls are close to their eventual adult height > by the age of 14 (she's a year older than Harry, right?). I'm > mortified to admit that I measured my 13 year old daughter's head > (didn't tell her why, of course, since she already has her doubts > about my sanity), and it's about 8 1/2 inches long. This would > indicate to me that Cho is only about 4 1/2' tall! Since she's a > seeker I would expect that she would be relatively small, but > wouldn't this make her almost freakishly short? I wonder if JKR > thought this through. > > Jo Serenadust, feeling kind of stupid even bringing this up, but > wanting to know if anyone else has thought about this Oh I had thought of that the moment I read that part in PoA. And imagine the mental picture I had when Cedric--a tall guy--went out with Cho. Probably Cho just reached Cedric's armpit, becasue we all know Cedric was taller than Harry, and Cho is smaller than Harry by a head. But I guess that since Cedric was 16, he could have been about 5'10" to six feet or so. I think Harry is about 5'4". A head measures more or less 8 inches, but since Harry just made an estimate, 6 inches is acceptable. That makes Cho 4'10". At 4'10", that's an acceptable height for Cho without her being a midget. After all she's just 14 and Asian girl tend to be petite. I should know. I'm an Asian, 21 years of age, and I stand 5'4 1/2" and I'm already considered of medium height in my country. :)At 14 I stood at 5 feet, and some of my friends were smaller than me at that age. But if Cho's 4'10" and Cedric was 5'10", that makes about one-foot difference. Oh well. *Lexan, who has too much free time so that she computes fictional character's heights. :) From gideoner4 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 23 15:28:00 2002 From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (gideoner4) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 15:28:00 -0000 Subject: Voldemort has a cruel gift for play on words (was Re: My favorite bit of foreshadowing In-Reply-To: <3C9BDB35.376191B2@email.unc.edu> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36884 > > But back to the original foreshadowing question. Moody/Crouch, as > someone else pointed out, was showing off in the whole book. He > basically confessed, as we later find out, in the chamber off the great > hall (Ch. 17). > "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.. ." > > Let me clarify here. He didn't *confess*. But he did pretty much > outline how he did it, and we never noticed it. *Very* clever on JKR's > part. > > Betty Most of the time, the best way to hide is not to hide at all. When it's in your face, you tend to overlook it. And JK is indeed clever to use that certain fact of life. :) ~Lexan From airin_uk at yahoo.co.uk Sat Mar 23 13:40:36 2002 From: airin_uk at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Airin?=) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:40:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Azkaban's location In-Reply-To: <1016868578.4201.93226.m10@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020323134036.33771.qmail@web20004.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36885 From: "GulPlum" : <<>> I have always been quite happy accepting that Azkaban is in the North Sea. The North sea is not just to the "North" of the UK. It extends most the way down the East coast of Scotland and England. The real question is, where does the English Channel become the North sea? *pulls up a map of the UK to see if this helps* Hmmm. If Azkaban were in a very southerly area of the North sea then Sirius quick visit would not have been too out of his way, and his journey north would still have been substantial. Airin xxxx (not new to the list, but has just been lurking for a veeeeeeerrrrrry long time. :) ) ===== Erotic, exotic and a little psycotic....... "angel of mercy, long dark hair and dark eyes, sardonic poet mouth and even under his robes he moved well, moved sweet, moved warm and oiled, and the girls who liked it hot, who liked it a little bit dark and dangerous, who liked it rough and potent and bittersweet, these girls sighed his name at night, his name, a star, like him, like his aura, a star, heavenly: Sirius Black." - Her2eternity "Harm" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sat Mar 23 16:09:07 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 16:09:07 -0000 Subject: House elf Ownership/possesion In-Reply-To: <20020322185515.91209.qmail@web10907.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36886 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Melanie Brackney wrote: > > But didn't the Malfoys own Dobby? Well, maybe they thought they did, but Dobby's always messing up along with his rather open act of ' rebellion' in CoS suggests to me that as far as HE was concerned, they were simply a subtitute or host family, until Harry was old enough to take him on. > I wonder if Dobby was stolen from the Potters. We don't know LV came to the Potters alone. Could Malfoy have been with him? So, LV is gone, Lucius is kicking around in the wreckage of the house and finds Dobby. So, he takes him home to Narcissa as a consolation prize, and does some kind of ownership magic on Dobby to claim him. Something like a weak form of the Imperius charm, perhaps, that Dobby can pull out of, now and then. Tex From graceofmyheart at hotmail.com Sat Mar 23 16:51:47 2002 From: graceofmyheart at hotmail.com (flower_fairy12) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 16:51:47 -0000 Subject: House elf Ownership/possesion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36887 > I wonder if Dobby was stolen from the Potters. We don't know > LV came to the Potters alone. Could Malfoy have been with him? > So, LV is gone, Lucius is kicking around in the wreckage of the house > and finds Dobby. So, he takes him home to Narcissa I don't think so, because I always thought they were living like muggles. At least they were living *near* muggles (it says so in PoA I think) so I doubt that they would have such a magical creature living with them. Dobby just can't keep his mouth shut anyway, and would probably tell someone that he was living with the Potters. (especially if he was being tortured :)) Rosie http://magic-hogwarts.com From sophiamcl at hotmail.com Sat Mar 23 15:43:24 2002 From: sophiamcl at hotmail.com (sophia mclaughlin) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 15:43:24 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius and Harry's whereabouts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36888 Marina said: >Hmmm....another thing that's been bothering me: How did Sirius know >where *Harry* lived? And did he really expect he would be able to >see him? After all, everyone believed him to be guilty, and I think >he would have suspected that people would be trying to protect Harry >from him. > >He could have known about the Dursleys from being friends with James >and Lily, but would he have known where they lived and that Harry >would be under their care? Assuming I've got my facts straight: When Hagrid collected baby Harry from Godric's hollow, he met Sirius who offered Hagrid his flying motorbike, to take Harry to the Dursley's, and that's how Sirius would know. Sophia _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From elfundeb at aol.com Sat Mar 23 17:23:01 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 12:23:01 EST Subject: Still-Life With Memory Charm Message-ID: <45.14bb44d2.29ce13f5@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36889 Musings on Elkins' Still Life (very long, very free-form, everything from speculation to theory): First, my theory of Memory Charms: I analogize the Memory Charm to surgery - a well executed Memory Charm excises a single, specific memory. This requires the magical equivalent of surgical precision. Moreover, since the purpose of executing Memory Charms on Muggles is to keep them ignorant of the wizarding world, they must not attract attention, which definitely might happen if large numbers of Muggles (such as the witnesses to Pettigrew's escape to the sewers) started wandering around with amnesia. Thus, I theorize that the Ministry wizards who perform such charms on Muggles are well-trained. Memory Charms, like Crucio or Imperius, can be broken, but only by a wizard of some power. Therefore, Memory Charms performed on Muggles are highly effective. The reason that Mr. Roberts required multiple Memory Charms is because every time a wizard did something magical in his presence, a new memory was created that required erasing. Because of the surgical precision required to execute a good Memory Charm, the average witch or wizard who does not perform them regularly may not always "hit the sweet spot" when he or she does attempt one. And some wizards (here I'm muttering something sounding suspiciously like "Lockhart") simply lack the skill to perform a good memory charm. So to avoid getting the wrong memory, the Lockharts of the world perform essentially a global Memory Charm which effectively erases everything ("Am I a professor?" says Lockhart). And one more thing, which may seem obvious. The recipient of a Memory Charm does not remember the charm having been performed. Is Neville suffering from a Memory Charm? I've been harboring that assumption since I first read the books. It seemed obvious, even to a dunderhead like me, that Neville is a much better wizard than given credit for (for all the reasons Elkins cited) and that he shows some of the same signs as Mr. Roberts and Bertha Jorkins. Some have suggested that the Memory Charm suggestions are false clues, and his problems are more psychological in origin. The idea is appealing. However, if that were the case I would have expected that the Dementor on the Hogwarts Express would have affected Neville almost as badly as it did Harry. JKR seems to make a big point of having Neville and Ginny stumble into the darkened compartment just before the Dementor arrives, and the only purpose I can imagine is to show us their reactions. In fact, Neville was far less affected than Harry, and less so than Ginny, who presumably was recalling the events of CoS, though they were both reported to be very pale. Interesting. I think that is additional evidence to support the Memory Charm theory. (By the way, my take on the Sorting Hat taking so long with Neville is that it was looking through the Memory Charm.) But I don't believe for a minute that a well-meaning family member put a Memory Charm on Neville to protect him from the psychological effects of the torture he witnessed. That, IMO, is inconsistent with the general violence and toughness of the Potterverse. (Does anyone have one of those Viking helmets to spare?) No, I hold to the notion that the purpose of the charm was to prevent him from squealing. But who did it? Well, it could have been one of the four Pensieve defendants, or someone else who was there, or arrived shortly thereafter, and didn't get caught. Or it could have been Gran. I really like this idea. It gives wonderful meaning to Snape appearing in Gran's clothing. Role of the Memory Charm to the plot, and who else might be suffering from one: I don't think Neville's Memory Charm adds much to the plot by itself, unless Gran was involved. Assuming he was no more than 2 or 3 at the time of the events, he wouldn't be able to identify the participants (e.g., "Barty Crouch was there") and I don't think he would fare much better identifying the perpetrators by sight. That is, of course, unless he already knew that person. Unless that person he knew did unspeakably horrible things to his parents. But Neville may not have been the only person to receive a Memory Charm that night. I think Mr. & Mrs. Longbottom also received them. According to Dumbledore and the Pensieve, the Longbottoms were tortured to reveal Voldemort's hideout and the torture left them instantly insane. I know nothing about psychology, but it always sounded fishy to me that a bit of Cruciatus would cause a trained Auror and his wife to both completely snap and lose their entire memories exactly at the same time, not just the traumatic memories of the torture itself, and without any hope of recovery. I would have thought that the psychological problems would have manifested themselves more in the nature of post-traumatic stress disorder. On the other hand, the description of the Longbottom's condition is completely consistent with a Memory Charm. For support, I compare the description of the Longbottoms (about whom Dumbledore says "They are insane. . . . They do not recognize [Neville]") with Prof. Lockhart (about whom Ron reports "Hasn't got a clue who he is, or where he is, or who we are.") I think the descriptions sound very similar. The next question is whether Mr. & Mrs. Longbottom have any plot-furthering information that could be revealed if their memories were unlocked. It's not the location of Lord Voldemort, which is no longer relevant. Nor is the identity of their torturers, if Crouch, the Lestranges and Fourth Man were responsible. Nevertheless, whether or not Frank actually knew Voldemort's whereabouts, if he was out searching he probably had uncovered a lot of other information the DE's would not want anyone to know (I have double-agent visions here). And they would also be able to tell if their torturers were persons who were totally unexpected. Like Gran. Or Ministry officials. Frank may have had information on people that would shock us. And if I'm totally wrong, and it's not the Longbottoms, I'm betting that someone else - perhaps a character we haven't even met - will reveal very surprising information about somebody's past once their memory is unlocked. Anyway, here's my scenario about how and why Frank and wife lost their memories, which of necessity includes a bit of (plausible, I hope) speculation. It doesn't matter for purposes of this scenario who the torturers were. The MOM would have at least as great an interest in this information as the DE's, and if Aurors were in effect secret agents, they would not want to reveal their secrets to the average MOM employee. It could have been other Aurors, if Frank was a suspected double agent. Or it could have been DE's. Whoever they were, they show up at the Longbottom residence, torture Frank, who doesn't talk, torture his lovely wife, which doesn't get him to talk either, maybe even torture Neville. But they are interrupted, perhaps by (or DE's, depending on which scenario you buy) at the door. The torturers don't want to kill the Longbottoms at this point because he hasn't cracked yet and they think they can return and continue the torture at a later date (believing they can break the charm as Voldemort did to Bertha). But they're in a rush since the Aurors (or the DE's) are at the door, so they quickly execute an enormous, cover-your-rear Obliviate that would do Lockhart proud, as there's no time for surgical precision. Then they Disapparate, Gran included. The Longbottoms, now clueless as to (presumably) their own and Neville's identity, may have little more than a vague recollection of Crucio, which allows the Ministry great latitude in sweeping up suspects. The Longbottoms are misdiagnosed based on the sketchy information and sent to St. Mungo's. Next, if the perpetrators were DE's they were caught; if the Ministry was responsible, they took advantage of the resulting furor that Dumbledore mentions and framed some suspected DE's (or, if it was DE's interrupting Ministry-applied torture, they had ready-made suspects.) Interesting possibilities here: if the MOM was responsible, could Fudge (now presumably and up-and-comer in the Ministry after his role in the Sirius/Pettigrew affair) have somehow had something to do with getting Crouch Jr. framed to perhaps clear Crouch Sr. out of the path to the Minister of Magic Position? If the DE's did it, could Barty have sacrificed himself - after all, Voldemort calls him his most faithful servant - to eliminate Crouch Sr., who might have been led an all-out attack against the DE's if he had become Minister of Magic, as a plausible candidate and clear the way for the [seemingly] benign Fudge? But a powerful Auror such as Frank Longbottom would eventually have been able to throw off the Memory Charm, you say. That's true, but Gran may be forestalling that eventuality by refreshing it every time she takes Neville to see his parents. If so, she's probably refreshing Neville's as well. But that's not all she's doing. She's got to find cover for Neville's charm-induced forgetfulness and other ill effects. And she needs to keep Neville from figuring out that he's powerful enough to shake the Memory Charm. So she begins to tell the relatives after she gets custody of Neville that she's worried he's a Squib, and she makes sure Neville hears it, too, so he thinks he's incapable of magic. She gets really irritated when Great Uncle Algie, horrified at the idea of a Squib in the Longbottom family, keeps trying to scare him into some magic, but she plays along. Another thing that suggests (at least to me) that she's not as benevolent as she seems is her constant harping on Neville's forgetfulness. In my view, the thoughtful things she does for Neville aren't nearly as helpful as they seem. Take the Remembrall, which she sends him the first week of school. Neville receives it in the Great Hall so everyone can see how forgetful he is. Moreover, it's quite useless. It constantly reminds Neville that he's forgotten something, but it doesn't tell him what those things are. To me, the Remembrall says only one thing: "Remember, you're nearly a Squib." Well, that's my theory, for what it's worth. The Thematic Issue of Memory, Remembrance and the Past Aside from the obvious Things Are Not What They Seem, a large part of the books taken together, once you strip away the magic, is a coming of age story, mostly focusing on Harry, but also his friends. For most of us, coming of age has to do with preparing to leave our nurturing home and school environments, and figuring out how we fit into to the larger world and identify our vocations in life. But Harry is missing one of the anchors - our families - that most of us use as a starting point in the journey. In that way he is much like an adopted child, grieving for a family he does not know. So for him the search is not just for his place in the adult world, it is for a connection to his past. Harry's past was as effectively locked as if he had a Memory Charm. As a result, as someone pointed out, Harry is drawn to things like the Mirror of Erised and the Dementors because they give him clues to unlock that past. That's why he's so anxious to go live with Sirius only minutes after wanting to kill him. But Harry has been very lucky in some respects because the information about his family has unfolded very slowly. He never seems to get more information at one time than he is able to digest. Therefore, he is able to slowly uncover pieces of the puzzle. At this point, Harry has a very idealized portrait of his parents. Head Boy and Girl, excellent Quidditch player, a mum who sacrificed her own life for him, a dad who saved the life of the hated Snape. This is very typical of how adopted children deal with their birthparents. But Snape has hinted that there is more to the Potters, and Harry has probably reached the point where he's ready to absorb more complicated, more ambivalent information about who his parents were. He'll need to do that in order to mature in his view of himself. Neville is in a very different position from Harry, however, though their immediate stories are similar. Both suffered a traumatic event as a toddler that cost him both parents. If my speculation is true, then both Harry and Neville were raised by relatives that actively suppressed a portion of that past, so that neither one knows who he is. Harry is fortunate to be able to slowly learn and accept the truth; moreover, the main bit of information that the Dursleys withheld - that he's a wizard - is positive. Neville's image of himself, however, remains deeply at odds with his true abilities (I don't think he's intentionally spreading disinformation about his magical ability). If Neville has a Memory Charm, unless it unblocks itself slowly as he is able to break the charm, the missing information may rear its ugly head in a shocking revelation that, for example, Gran is evil. This would be much more difficult for Neville to cope with than Harry's learning he is a wizard, and I wonder what kind of uncontrolled magic such a disclosure might unleash in poor Neville. This is another point adoption social workers stress: it's highly detrimental to an older child or adolescent to suddenly be told out of the blue a fact about his past that upends his notions of who he is (such as a revelation of adoptive status); better for the child that information, positive and negative, about the child's background, be shared slowly, with more information revealed as the child gives indications that he is ready for it. This is the way Harry is learning. We also can't rule out startling revelations about some of the other kids' backgrounds. All of this - the ability to cope with and accept one's past - tie into Dumbledore's big theme that it's ultimately our choices that dictate who we are. At the same time, memory and information about one's past and family are important in giving us the sense of self to help make those choices. Each of the student characters (not just Harry and Neville) needs to accept his or her past, and family background, whatever it is - whether that person is from a wizard or Muggle family, whether he is poor or rich, whether the person's parents are martyrs in the cause of good or bloodthirsty Death Eaters, the Minister of Magic or a milkman. It's often hard enough for adolescents who know their backgrounds to come to accept it. That's part of growing up. But before you can accept it and move beyond it, you have to know what it is. I'm not sure this last bit is very well articulated, as I'm veering off into the type of sociological discussion that's far outside my expertiese, but I'm speaking as a parent of two adopted children. There are many parallels between how they cope with missing background information and Harry Potter. One in particular identifies very strongly with Harry Potter and fantasizes about getting a letter from Hogwarts when he turns 11. So this whole search for one's past resonates very much with me, as it's my job to impart the information I have at the right time and to help them accept the information they get, obtain whatever additional information they might want, and accept that there is much they will never know. I get to do what Dumbledore's doing. I think he's doing a good job. So is Harry. But I worry about Neville. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 23 16:25:58 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 16:25:58 -0000 Subject: Privit Drive Safety Zone & Put-Outer (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36890 Very good theories! I would like to add one of my own-I am new to this site so if someone else has proposed this, sorry-but a take off on your theory that Harry is safe in his relations care/presence. My theory is that Dumbledore is a relative of Harry's, perhaps his grandfather on James' side? I have wondered why Dumbledore did not use a wand to extinguish the lights on Privit Drive on the night of Harry's arrival. Your theories could explain that. From kendra_grant at fantasysales.net Sat Mar 23 16:57:53 2002 From: kendra_grant at fantasysales.net (Kendra Grant-Bingham) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 11:57:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: McGonagall Location On Oct 31, 1981 In-Reply-To: <1016889122.2953.49869.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020323114928.00a5c250@mail.fantasysales.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36891 ~~~~~Alexander writes >~~~~~"It was October 31. During this time both McGonagall and >Hagrid had to be at Hogwarts. We do not know how did Hagrid >get to Godric's Hollow initially, but somehow I don't think >it was Hogwarts Express. Apparation is also out of the >question - Hagrid cannot apparate (inability to apparate in >Hogwarts doesn't come into account because he could simply >leave Hogwarts grounds). Broom? Ridiculous. Look at Hagrid >and look at a broom. It seems that the only way for Hagrid >to get to Godric's Hollow *quickly* was to use the floo >network."~~~~~ You put a comparison of Hagrid and a broom then say he must have used the floo network. But, I'm almost certain that Hagrid is much too big to fit in most people's fireplace openings, much less their flue! *S* --- Kendra Grant-Bingham ~~~~~Phoenix Moonshadow Wych~~~~~ "Gryffindor House ...where Friendship and Bravery count." From john at walton.vu Sat Mar 23 18:12:41 2002 From: john at walton.vu (John Walton) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 18:12:41 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: McGonagall Location On Oct 31, 1981 In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20020323114928.00a5c250@mail.fantasysales.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36892 Kendra Grant-Bingham wrote: > You put a comparison of Hagrid and a broom then say he must have used the > floo network. But, I'm almost certain that Hagrid is much too big to fit in > most people's fireplace openings, much less their flue! *S* Most modern fireplaces, certainly, but I would be fairly certain that, as an old castle, Hogwarts would have a large kitchen fire. It wouldn't be outside the realms of possibility if Godric's Hollow had one too, even if it was in a pub in the nearest town. Just a thought ;) --John ____________________________________________ Quidditch Through The Ages" by Kennilworthy Whisp: 14 Sickles 3 Knuts New Firebolt Broom: just over 100 Galleons Watching Draco Malfoy being bounced up and down after being turned into a ferret: Priceless The best things in life are free. For everything else, there's Harry Potter. John Walton || john at walton.vu ____________________________________________ From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat Mar 23 18:21:35 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 18:21:35 -0000 Subject: Voldemort has a cruel gift for play on words (was Re: My favorite bit of foreshadowing In-Reply-To: <3C9BDB35.376191B2@email.unc.edu> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36893 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Betty wrote: > Zoe Hooch: > > Has anyone else got examples of Voldemort's irony? > >From Chap. 1 of GoF: Wormtail muttered something so quietly that Frank could not hear it, but it made the second man laugh -- an entirely mirthless laugh, cold as his speech. "We could have modified her *memory*? But Memory Charms can be broken by a powerful wizard, as I proved when I questioned her. It would be an insult to her *memory* not to use the information I extracted from her, Wormtail." - CMC From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sat Mar 23 18:51:42 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 18:51:42 -0000 Subject: Corrected: Protections on Privet Drive & Put-Outer (LONG) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36894 I tried to post this yesterday, and somehow managed to post a bunch of gibberish instead. Very embarrassing. This is what I intended to post: ******* Grey Wolf wrote: > There is actually no canon to support the idea of a Safety Zone at >all > except for Dumbledore's typical cryptic statements of Harry having >to > go to live to his uncle's house for his protection. > > From then on, the members of this board (myself included) have gone >on > to weave theories about this protection and how it's brought about.- Yes, we have speculated about Harry's protection quite a bit. A few months back, I started wondering if the Put-Outer might have something to do with the protections on Privet Drive. Most of what follows are my thoughts from that discussion, with a few new tidbits tossed in. So. Why does Dumbledore uses the Put-Outer to extinguish and light the lamps on Privet Drive. Why doesn't he just use a wand? Is this just because JKR doesn't yet want us to know about wands? Or is something else really important going on? And why does JKR, a master of inventing clever names like veritaserum and pensieve, resort to a clunky name like Put-Outer? Then, when I went to see that Hollywood-production-that-we-are-not- supposed-to-discuss-on-this-list, I observed that a big chunk of valuable time is used watching Dumbledore use the Put-Outer in a rather slow and dramatic way. Why is so much attention (in the book and movie) devoted to the Put-Outer in one of the crucial opening scenes? Why has there been no mention of it since, even though we sometimes see teachers (Lupin and Trelawney) dim or ignite lights at Hogwarts? Here's what we are told about the Put-Outer in PS/SS: When Dumbledore arrives, he rummages around in his cloak. He finds the Put-Outer. "He flicked it open, held it up in the air, and clicked it. The nearest street lamp went out with a little pop. He clicked it again -- the next lamp flickered into the darkness. Twelve times he clicked the Put-Outer, until the only lights left on the whole street were two tiny pinpricks in the distance, which were the eyes of the cat watching him." Then Dumbledore puts it back into his pocket. But notice how the use of the Put-Outer changes when it is time to turn the street lamps back on: "On the corner, he stopped and took out the silver Put-Outer. He clicked it once, and twelve balls of light sped back to their street lamps so that Privet Drive glowed suddenly orange and he could make out a tabby cat slinking around the corner at the other end of the street." So, when Dumbledore extinguishes the lamps, he clicks once for each lamp, and they just go out. But when he turns them on, they don't just pop back on. Instead, we are told their color for the first time (orange), and balls of light come out of the Put-Outer all at once. It seems to me that Dumbledore is doing much more than re- lighting the lamps. He is putting something from the Put-Outer into the street lamps, and it well could be the protection for Privet Drive. If you think about it, there really isn't much of a compelling reason for Dumbledore to extinguish the lights in the first place, IMO. The street is deserted, and it is the middle of the night. When Dumbledore extinguishes the lights, he doesn't yet know that Hagrid will show up in a fashion (on a flying motorcycle) that might generate curiosity among the muggles. Also, if Dumbledore wishes for darkness, he really doesn't have to extinguish 12 street lamps, does he? Two or four, perhaps, but extinguishing 12 lamps seems like far more than necessary to darken the Dursleys' home. That makes me wonder if the 12 balls of light have something to do with the 12 little planets moving around the edge of Dumbledore's gold watch. Anyway, JKR wants to keep all of this a mystery for now. So she misdirects us in three ways to confuse us. First, she says "twelve balls of light sped *back to their* street lamps. Of course, we can now see that these twelve balls of light never went from the street lamps into the Put-Outer in the first place. This phrase "back to their street lamps" suggests that these are the same twelve balls of light that Dumbledore extinguished, but they really aren't, are they? Second, as for the name "Put-Outer," I think JKR didn't want a clever name; she wanted a painfully obvious name to misdirect us all and get us to think Dumbledore really is just turning the lights off and on again. Third, after she slips in the part about the balls of lights speeding back to the lamps, she immediately brings up the tabby cat, just to make sure we start thinking about something other than the street lamps. Now, if something is going on with the Put-Outer and the 12 balls of light, what could it be? I can think of two possibilities: 1. A forcefield/invisibility screen that prevents wizards from finding the Dursleys' house. Something akin to Unplottability like Durmstrang. This idea works well enough, as the forcefield isn't in place to prevent Hagrid from arriving and is installed afterward. But the problem with the Unplottability idea is that Fred, George and Ron are able to find the house in CoS in a flying car, Dobby finds it in CoS, and Mr. Weasley connects it to the floo network. Owls also find it quite easily. Sirius Black manages to find the Dursleys' house as well (or at least find the Dursleys' neighborhood). So I don't think the protection is likely to be a form of Unplottability. 2. A surveillance device that lets the good wizards know everything that is happening on Privet Drive. This works a lot better, I think. We certainly know that MoM instantly knows about all magic that happens on Privet Drive, based on their response to Dobby's magic and Aunt Marge (and we know they don't react instantly to magic other underage wizards perform). We know that Hagrid or Dumbledore knows that Harry isn't receiving his letters, that he is moved from the cupboard to the bedroom, and that the Dursleys flee. Maybe each of the 12 street lamp is a separate surveillance device, perhaps sending different types of information (magic usage, communication monitoring, visual image) to different recipients (one for MoM, one for Dumbledore, one for Mrs. Figg, etc.) Also, we know Fudge was panicked when Harry ran away after he blew up Aunt Marge. JKR specifically tells us that he was a few streets away, on Magnolia Crescent. So it is no wonder why MoM panicked -- Harry was "off the radar," they couldn't see him, and they had no means of protecting him. Another (and hopefully last) obstacle is figuring out how Harry is safe when he is at school, away from the 12 monitoring devices on Privet Drive. Maybe the answer is that Harry is safe when he is in the presence of his relations, which several people have already proposed as part of Harry's protection. When he is at school, he is in Dudley's presence. Had Dudley gone to Smeltings and Harry gone to a different muggle school, that protection might not have existed. It might be a good thing that the wizarding world spirited Harry away to Hogwarts when they did. So, does that work? Cindy From uncmark at yahoo.com Sat Mar 23 20:33:40 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 20:33:40 -0000 Subject: New Book: Harry Potter's Reader's Guide by Phillip Nel Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36895 Just found a new book at the library, a paperback from Continuum Contemporaries; J.K. Rowling' Harry Potter Novels: A Reader's Guide by Philip Nel. I just started reading. It's 96 pages and reminiscent of Cliffnotes. It has an extensive bio of JKR and a lot of analysius of recurring themes. So far, During the time JKR's mother was sick (like Harry, her mother died young) a friend rescued her from depession and cheered her up with his turquoise Ford Anglia. I'll post more as I finish. Has anyone else read it? Uncmark From ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com Sat Mar 23 20:40:47 2002 From: ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com (Melanie Brackney) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 12:40:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Dursleys,my foreshadowing, Message-ID: <20020323204047.18841.qmail@web10906.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36896 Hmmm....another thing that's been bothering me: How did Sirius know where *Harry* lived? And did he really expect he would be able to see him? After all, everyone believed him to be guilty, and I think he would have suspected that people would be trying to protect Harry from him. He could have known about the Dursleys from being friends with James and Lily, but would he have known where they lived and that Harry would be under their care? Any thoughts? Abby Part of me wants to say that was probably common wizarding knowledge to some degree. I mean it was common knowledge that Harry was being raised by muggle relatives, at least I believe it was it's implied as such. I would definitely think that Sirius would have read a bit about the it in the daily prophet and would thus have just assumed from his relationship with James and LIly that it would be the Dursley's it would almost have to have been them I believe considering they were the closest living relatives to Harry. My favorite bit of forshadowing would have to be the chessboard when ron "Sacrifices" himself to save Harry and Hermione. I believe that this is definitely a foreshadow of a more permanent harder sacrifice that Ron will have to make, his life. Although, I have my many theories about Ron and his struggles ahead. Yes, I believe Ron will toy with the dark side(the power, prestigue, etc will get to him) but ultimately I see him returning to the good side and sacrificing himself for Harry. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sat Mar 23 21:01:56 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:01:56 -0000 Subject: Hagrid not brave? (was Re: Hagrid, Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: <00f501c1d0a7$d8437560$7da1a5c2@nancyr> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36897 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "RYANS" wrote: > > I have always liked Hagrid too! There is just one thing that has bothered me about him- he doesn't seem brave enough to be a Gryffindor! He is brave enough around his 'beasts' but then again, he's bigger than most of them are! How did he get in then? > I'd appreciate any comments! > Lazyscientist. > But why doesn't Hagrid seem brave to you? Can you be more specific about it? Naama From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sat Mar 23 21:18:12 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:18:12 -0000 Subject: DEs recognising one another? (was Re: Who's Afraid Of The In-Reply-To: <00c501c1d11d$96381880$9a7763d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36898 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda" wrote: > Naama said, about whether the DEs could recognize each other via the Dark > mark: > > > No. Voldemort would never allow a mechanism that would enable one DE > > to recognise another. Remember we're talking about a secret > > organisation - for one member to potentially be able to point out ALL > > other members means that one traitor can bring down the whole > > organisation. > > At the graveyard scence, we saw how Voldemort used the mark - as a > > means to call his followers to his side. I don't remember his exact > > words, but I did get the impression that he is the only one who can > > make use of the mark. > > "Every Death Eater had the sign burned into him by the Dark Lord. It was a > means of distinguishing one another, and his means of summoning us to him." > (GoF, p. 710 [US]) > > Snape is the speaker, but I think he is a trustworthy source on this > particular subject. > > --Amanda Yikes! I really missed that one, didn't I? I totally forgot about this scene. I stand humbly corrected. )-: However, WHY would Voldemort allow his followers to be so easily exposed? I would have thought that a secret organisation such as the DEs would be much more careful about keeping the members' identity secret, wouldn't you? Maybe it works as a mechanism for identification only if both DEs activate it (meaning that the revelation has to be voluntary - one DE can't force another DE to be revealed to him, unless the other wills it also. Does that make sense?) Naama From lmccabe at sonic.net Sat Mar 23 21:44:34 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (Linda C. McCabe) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:44:34 -0800 Subject: Arabella Figg, Winky Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36899 I've been meaning to jump into the fray on this topic, but haven't had the time to until now. So please bear with me as I try to summarize the best bits from recent discussions. Arabella Figg has got to be the number one character that is driving my imagination in regards to Book 5. And we know so little about her - that's part of what makes me ascribe all kinds of things to her. Kitty had mentioned several theories in her posting 36711 as well as Laura in 36802. I must say that several of them I had also thought of. The smell of cabbage in her house is probably a clue that goes along with Harry tasting the Polyjuice Potion and saying it tasted of cabbage. However, I hope that his guardian (which I think we can all safely say is what the consensus is for Mrs. Figg's role), has not had to slug down Polyjuice potion continually for fourteen years to live amongst the muggles. Of course she wouldn't have to drink it every hour on the hour if she were safely inside her house. However, to answer the door...I'll Be There in Just a Minute...(glug, glug, glug)...transforms into the old lady. Instead, I am hoping that she is indeed one of those characters that is not who they appear to be and instead used a simple Aging Potion that was used by the Weasley twins and others in hopes to fool the Goblet of Fire. I'd like her to be younger, but at least a decade older than Sirius-Severus-Remus-James-Lily cohorts. I guess I'd just like it if there were someone that had a little more life under their belt guarding Harry. My backstory for her includes her being an freelance Auror working for Dumbledore and not the MoM. She's also a widow. Her late husband was killed by Voldemort and the DEs. In her grief mixed with rage, it caused her to miscarry...so when Dumbledore reassigned her to watch over Harry, it was something that was a welcome change for her. She was able to grieve the loss of her husband in solitude and be responsible for a child's security. It would have been difficult to get the Dursley's to trust someone young with their family's embarrassment. So, she took an aging potion to appear like a harmless little old lady who's just a tad off, which would give the Dursleys enough reassurances that she wouldn't sense anything strange about Harry. I'd also like that if you take an aging potion that it has the effect of enhancing your abilities and that if you take an anti-aging potion (not mentioned in canon, but it sounds good to me) that it diminishes your powers. Can you say Gilderoy Lockhart? Mrs. Figg was also there on Privet Drive the morning that Aunt Petunia discovered Harry on the front steps. She might have been walking by and then rushed to help Petunia as she fell in her fit on the doorstep. Unfortunately Mrs. Figg was unable to forge a closer relationship where they'd lean on her to babysit regularly so she had to take her once a year visits to use to familiarize Harry with her cats. These are her sentries throughout the neighborhood. Heck, if they weren't normal cats and didn't annoy neighbors by using their gardens as litter boxes and killing songbirds in their trees - then no one would mind them prowling everywhere. And Harry would certainly enjoy having some company when he was stuck up in the trees hiding from Dudley's gang. If he confided in the cats while he was petting them, then they'd report back to Mrs. Figg what was going on inside the Dursley Household. As for the broken leg, I think she actually broke her leg tripping over a cat as was mentioned in SS/PS. This would have been in front of a neighbor who may have distracted her. Since she had eighty year old bones, falling down would be hazardous. Any neighbor witnessing this would have insisted on taking an elderly woman who lived alone to the hospital. It's not something she could refuse to do without risking her cover being blown. Of course, after it was set in a cast she could have contacted someone to come and help mend her leg quickly and only then need to use the crutches and cast when she was outside the house. I think Arabella is an Animagus also. A cat, of course. That should allow her the ability to converse with her sentries with ease. (Since Wormtail can talk with rats and Sirius could communicate with Crookshanks it follows canon logic.) She's my guess as to who will be the next DADA instructor. I'm hoping that Sirius will take over the watch duties for Privet Drive while Arabella is at Hogwarts. This would allow him to sleep in a bed and no longer subsist on rats. Contrary to Cindy's comment that Sirius is Dead Sexy - I think he has the *potential* to be just that. He just needs to lose the convict-on-the-run look. You know...shave, shower, get rid of any fleas you've picked up in the Forbidden Forest. Maybe get some new clothes and have some square meals so he's no longer emaciated. I think if he cleans himself up and takes an aging potion enough for twenty years that he could pass himself off and not attract undue attention either in the Wizarding community or amongst the Muggles. And yes, my personal wish for a SHIP is with Arabella Figg and Sirius Black. Heck both were kept confined and isolated for the last fourteen years due to Voldemort. I'd like to see them find some form of happiness. That's really why I don't want her to be in an octagenarian. Someone in her forties and dating a man in his thirties - that I can see. And Tex in message 36849 thinks that Winky going to the Weasleys. I agree with that. He didn't think there was any canon to support it. However, when Harry first told Ron, Fred and George about Dobby's warning, George said that "Mum's always wishing we had a house-elf to do the ironing. But all we've got is a lousy old ghoul in the attic and gnomes all over the garden. House-elves come with big old manors and castles and places like that; you wouldn't catch one in our house..." then in GoF we saw how the other elves were upset with Winky as she kept wailing about drunk in the kitchens. I'm sure that after she saw Barty, Jr. that she became totally unhinged. I think the other elves would complain to Dumbledore to give her the sack (or sock!) Then he might just ask Molly to take Winky in thinking that a new family is just what she needs. I'm working on some fanfic along these lines. If anyone wants to help critique it before I submit it anywhere, please contact me offlist. Athena From catlady at wicca.net Sat Mar 23 23:45:36 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 23:45:36 -0000 Subject: New Book: Harry Potter's Reader's Guide by Phillip Nel In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36900 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" wrote: > Just found a new book at the library, a paperback from Continuum > Contemporaries; J.K. Rowling' Harry Potter Novels: A Reader's Guide > by Philip Nel. (snipp) > I'll post more as I finish. Has anyone else read it? Listmom Penny read it and posted a review (#30390 11/29/01) so positive that I immediately ordered it from Amazon. She also invited the author to join this ygroup, and he posted a couple of messages, but went away again before I got around to asking him why his book is a H/H shipper. (Going back to find that post of Penny's incidentally reminded me of what good posts I used to write, way back in December.) From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sat Mar 23 23:49:39 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 23:49:39 -0000 Subject: Arabella Figg, Winky In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36901 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Linda C. McCabe" wrote: > Arabella Figg has got to be the number one character that is driving my > imagination in regards to Book 5. And we know so little about her - that's > part of what makes me ascribe all kinds of things to her. Kitty had > mentioned several theories in her posting 36711 as well as Laura in 36802. > I must say that several of them I had also thought of. The smell of cabbage > in her house is probably a clue that goes along with Harry tasting the > Polyjuice Potion and saying it tasted of cabbage. However, I hope that his > guardian (which I think we can all safely say is what the consensus is for > Mrs. Figg's role), has not had to slug down Polyjuice potion continually for > fourteen years to live amongst the muggles. Of course she wouldn't have to > drink it every hour on the hour if she were safely inside her house. > However, to answer the door...I'll Be There in Just a Minute... (glug, glug, > glug)...transforms into the old lady. I don't know if Mrs. Figg has been changing her appearance all this time or not, but if she is, I doubt she's using Polyjuice. Because if she is, then who the heck is she Polyjuicing into? Has she been keeping a real old lady in the attic for the past 14 years, supplying hair and fingernail clippings? Doesn't seem likely somehow. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From macloudt at hotmail.com Sun Mar 24 00:02:46 2002 From: macloudt at hotmail.com (Mary Jennings) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 00:02:46 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Corrected: Protections on Privet Drive & Put-Outer (LONG) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36902 Cindy wrote: >as for the name "Put-Outer," I think JKR didn't want a clever >name; she wanted a painfully obvious name to misdirect us all and get >us to think Dumbledore really is just turning the lights off and on >again. Interesting thoughts! I was thinking that perhaps JKR also used the dull "Put-Outer" term instead of a more fanciful one in order not to turn the reader off. Bearing in mind that these are supposedly childrens' books:::::ducks from flying objects:::::and we're talking about the beginning of the first book of the series, she may have thought that, say, an 11-year-old coming across a term such as pensieve, which has no obvious meaning and must be explained in detail, would be turned off and stop reading the book. Once the reader is well into the book, though, it's safe to introduce the wierd and the wonderful Potterverse vocabulary. Just my two knuts. Cheers! Mary Ann :) _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From editor at texas.net Sun Mar 24 00:12:06 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 18:12:06 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] House elf Ownership/possesion References: Message-ID: <007301c1d2c8$88e0a380$0c7763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36903 Okay, I now chime in on the house elf thing. Again, haven't been following in detail, but it seems to me that everyone's focus is on the elves belonging to families. I don't think they do. When Fred and George clarify for Harry what a house-elf is, this is what they say: "I don't know whether the Malfoys own a house-elf...." said Harry. "Well, whoever owns him will be an old wizarding family, and they'll be rich," said Fred. .......... "...House-elves come with big old manors and castles and places like that; you wouldn't catch one in our house..." (from George's speech). all, p. 29, CoS {US} >From this, I think the terminology of the family "owning" the elf, and the loyalty of the elf to the family, come from the family owning the PLACE. They are associated with old wizarding families because old wizarding families are likely to own big old manors and castles and places like that. If the elves belonged to the families, their would not need to be a House Elf Relocation Office. I think there is a complex bond, a 3-way relationship, involving the elf, the location, and the owner of the location. Status as the owner of the location gives the owner certain powers over the elf, and the elves are bound to obey not the wizard per se, but the owner of their location. For Winky, Mr. Crouch had the power to free her, but what he did was banish her from her location, and her service to its owners. Why else, then, would they be associated as strongly with places as with old families? The Weasleys are an old wizarding family themselves. --Amanda, apologizing as usual if anyone's taken this angle From editor at texas.net Sun Mar 24 00:23:21 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 18:23:21 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DEs recognising one another? (was Re: Who's Afraid Of The References: Message-ID: <00b401c1d2ca$1ba7e7e0$0c7763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36904 Naama said > However, WHY would Voldemort allow his followers to > be so easily exposed? I would have thought that a secret organisation > such as the DEs would be much more careful about keeping the members' > identity secret, wouldn't you? Maybe it works as a mechanism for > identification only if both DEs activate it (meaning that the > revelation has to be voluntary - one DE can't force another DE to be > revealed to him, unless the other wills it also. Does that make > sense?) Perfect sense. I think there was some way they could "activate" their Mark, similar to the finger-snap gesture Snape uses when the ends of Lupin's bonds fly to his hands, or the hand-clap or whatever when Dumbledore changes the decoration at the end of Book 1. Some gestural activation that would be innocuous, causing their Mark to call to its brother or something. I don't think they showed all the time, they *couldn't* have, how stupid is that, why not tattoo "Voldemort Rocks" on your forehead? --Amanda From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sun Mar 24 01:38:52 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 01:38:52 -0000 Subject: Arabella Figg, Winky, Zoo Snake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36905 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Linda C. McCabe" wrote: > And Tex in message 36849 thinks that Winky going to the Weasleys. I agree > with that. He didn't think there was any canon to support it. However, > when Harry first told Ron, Fred and George about Dobby's warning, George > said that "Mum's always wishing we had a house-elf to do the ironing. But > all we've got is a lousy old ghoul in the attic and gnomes all over the > garden. House-elves come with big old manors and castles and places like > that; you wouldn't catch one in our house..." then in GoF we saw how the > other elves were upset with Winky as she kept wailing about drunk in the > kitchens. I'm sure that after she saw Barty, Jr. that she became totally > unhinged. I think the other elves would complain to Dumbledore to give her > the sack (or sock!) Then he might just ask Molly to take Winky in thinking > that a new family is just what she needs. > > I'm working on some fanfic along these lines. If anyone wants to help > critique it before I submit it anywhere, please contact me offlist. > My wish for Winky to end up at the Weasleys is that poor Molly *deserves* some help. And, yes, I suspect D'dore would be involved in the transfer. Winky is indeed a *house* elf, not a school elf. I see a subtle difference in temprament of the two kinds of elf. She needs affirmation, which Molly certainly can supply, as she has for her own kids. In fact, I was a little dissappointed not to find her in Ron's suitcase, going home on the Hogwarts express. But JKR had other things to happen on that trip. I agree JKR has something in it for Figg. Characters in Book 1 keep turning up, later. I keep wondering about that snake in the zoo. Sirius evidently went to the tropics after PoA; Harry gets letters from him delivered by brightly-colored (i.e. tropical) birds. (Brazil/Borneo, anyone?) So, he mentions Harry's plight to a drinking buddy who happens to be parsil and our zoo snake hears about it. I see this snake showing up in time to eat Ninji, at the big show-down. From uncmark at yahoo.com Sun Mar 24 03:57:16 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 03:57:16 -0000 Subject: Hagrid not brave? (was Re: Hagrid, Keeper of the Keys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36906 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "RYANS" wrote: > > > I have always liked Hagrid too! There is just one thing that has > bothered me about him- he doesn't seem brave enough to be a > Gryffindor! He is brave enough around his 'beasts' but then again, > he's bigger than most of them are! How did he get in then? > > I'd appreciate any comments! > > Lazyscientist. > > Brave? Imagine living in a world where Azkaban was real. Would you go to Azkaban willingly when you could get out of it by giving up a spider? Hey you could have avoided being expelled in your third year by giving up an icky spider. Then in GofF, some secret about your parents, that you have NO control over, comes out and public opinion wants you fired and drummed out of existance. Would you stay and face a stream of howlers or walk out your hut and walk the 50 yards to the Forbidden Forest and live among the beasts that accept you? Hagrid is a rare being, caring and accepting of everyone. He is rarely selfish and never petty. Would you allow Draco and his buddies to act out without following the Snape Model and taking off points? It takes a RARE person to teach and a RARER person to be a good one. Hagrid still needs a little work on his lesson plans, but no one at Hogwart's has stood up to more adversity and been as unflinching as Rubeaus. I was surprised on his opinion of elf rights as he sems to be accepting of every beast; human, humanoid, or whatever. Spiders, Centaurs, Hippogryphs, all respect the name of Hagrid. Like Harry he expresses the values of several houses (except Slytherin) Hardworking, Loyal, and yes BRAVE. Uncmark From uncmark at yahoo.com Sun Mar 24 05:25:32 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 05:25:32 -0000 Subject: Is Dobby a good house elf/short? In-Reply-To: <15F4D924.16C4A975.B13B89B9@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36907 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., kellybroughton at n... wrote: > >"It state in COS chapter two--- "The Wizard family > >Dobby serves, sir... DObby is a house-elf... bound to > >serve one house and one family forever." > > > >and since later we find out that he's Malfoys elf... I > >dont think he could be the Potters old elf." > > >adrienne > > > > Well.... I wonder. If Dobby truly *is* the Malfoys' house-elf, theirs alone and always will be, WHY then would he make the effort to go to Harry on his own initiative(?) and try to keep Harry from going back to Hogwarts in order to save Harry? In other words, why would Dobby *care* whether Harry goes back or not? Dobby makes it quite clear that the Malfoys don't even know what he's doing, and if they ever find out, they'll put him in a serious hurt.(Refer to Cos, page 14.) I am of the mind that there's something going on to make Dobby go against his nature (being a "good house-elf") that forces him to make such a bold action. Could the reason possibly be that, by going to Harry without the Malfoys' knowledge and/or permission, that Dobby actually IS being a "good house-elf"? A good 'house-elf'? Maybe Hermione's rubbing off on me, but the term seems reminiscent of the Roots miniseries when a slaveowner was discussing a good ni--er. Agreed, Dobby acts against the wishes of his master, but he recognizes the need to break his enslavement. I don't know how long-lived elves in the Potterverse are, but Dobby remembers how elves fared under Lord Voldemort. Amd he recognized hoe elves would fare if his master Malfoy's plans went through. Was Dobby James Potter's elf? It's possible. It would explain Dobby's independent thought if he had gone from being the domestic of a benevolent wizard to the cruelty of a secret Death Eater. I'd like to think Diobby arrived on trhe idea himself, that independent thought was an ability present in all house-elves. Like the Giants mentioned in GofF the elves might be strong allies in the fight against Valdemort. They have strong magic without wands and at least Dobby has a strong sense of goodness and loyalty. I'm studying all the references to elves and will post later, but No my belief is that Dobby was a poor house-elf. He is too smart to follow orders unquestioningly and may actually think & act independently following his idea of goodness. Uncmark From uncmark at yahoo.com Sun Mar 24 06:24:31 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 06:24:31 -0000 Subject: Arabella Figg, Winky, Zoo Snake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36908 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Linda C. McCabe" wrote: > > > And Tex in message 36849 thinks that Winky going to the Weasleys. > I agree with that... I think the other elves would complain to Dumbledore to give her the sack (or sock!) Then he might just ask Molly to take Winky in thinking that a new family is just what she needs. > "tex23236" wrote: > My wish for Winky to end up at the Weasleys is that poor Molly > *deserves* some help. And, yes, I suspect D'dore would be involved > in the transfer. Winky is indeed a *house* elf, not a school elf. > I see a subtle difference in temprament of the two kinds of elf. > She needs affirmation, which Molly certainly can supply, as she > has for her own kids. In fact, I was a little dissappointed not to > find her in Ron's suitcase, going home on the Hogwarts express. > But JKR had other things to happen on that trip. Excuse me, Winky and Dobby are FREE elves, as Hermione would be glad to remind you. I could not see Dumbledore firing her, HOWEVER Dobby and Winky both have three months summer vacation with little to do. I could imagine Ginny waiting in the infirmary for word of Harry and meeting Dobby while both waited for official news. D: I know you! You be Wheezy's sister! G: I'm Ginny Weasley. You're Dobby? The elf Hermione talks about? D: Harry Potter talks about you! G: He does? I'm waiting for news of him. D: Harry Potter be fine! He be strong wizard! Dobby be worried about Winky, he is (Dobby talks about Winky for a while) G: Hermione told me about you two. Will she be OK? D: I worry about Winky. School ends soon, then where will we go? G: You know, Mom always wanted an elf... but we couldn't pay much and Hermione's right. You are free. Would you like to come to our house as our guest? D: Guest, Miss Wheezy? No wizard has ever had a house elf as a guest! G: But you'rew not just a house-elf. You're free and a friend of Harry's. Will you come as my friend? I know. It's a little cheesey. But if Dobby and Winky came to the Weasley's, it would possible only as an invite rather than a job. Any Opinions? Uncmark From ecuamerican at hotmail.com Sun Mar 24 06:22:52 2002 From: ecuamerican at hotmail.com (ecuman24) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 06:22:52 -0000 Subject: Corrected: Protections on Privet Drive & Put-Outer (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36909 Cindy writes: > Yes, we have speculated about Harry's protection quite a bit. A few > months back, I started wondering if the Put-Outer might have > something to do with the protections on Privet Drive. Most of what > follows are my thoughts from that discussion, with a few new tidbits > tossed in. > > So. Why does Dumbledore uses the Put-Outer to extinguish and > light the lamps on Privet Drive. Why doesn't he just use a wand? Is > this just because JKR doesn't yet want us to know about wands? Or is > something else really important going on? And why does JKR, a master > of inventing clever names like veritaserum and pensieve, resort to a > clunky name like Put-Outer? > > Then, when I went to see that Hollywood-production-that-we-are-not- > supposed-to-discuss-on-this-list, I observed that a big chunk of > valuable time is used watching Dumbledore use the Put-Outer in a > rather slow and dramatic way. Why is so much attention (in the book > and movie) devoted to the Put-Outer in one of the crucial opening > scenes? Why has there been no mention > of it since, even though we sometimes see teachers (Lupin and > Trelawney) dim or ignite lights at Hogwarts? I have mixed feelings to this post. Its a very well written and thought out conversation. But any here goes: I don't think you should be worrying about too much about how much "screen time" and "page time" the Put Outers get. Remember, that this is a book and the first book of a well thought out, spider web plot, kind of world. An author ( and a director) need to introduce this world in a controlled but tantalizing manner. The Putter Outer was a clever tool by JKR to slowly introduce and spark our minds and imagination. Remember, at the time she did not know this was going to be a huge hit. Mostly everything written in the first chapter was for intro and drama. BUT... you do bring about some good theories, one of many, about Harry's protection. Juan From skelkins at attbi.com Sun Mar 24 08:57:16 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 08:57:16 -0000 Subject: Do people like SYCOPHANTS? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36910 Dicentra wrote: > Dicentra_spectabilis_alba looks at her name and over to the > SYCOPHANTS charter, then over to her name again and realizes that > she chose as an alias a freaking bleeding heart, which she is not. And a *lily-white* bleeding heart, at that! The first time that I saw your handle, actually, I figured that you must be poking some fun at your own political leanings -- much as I'm doing, in fact, whenever I cheerfully declare myself to be a Bleeding Heart. But then I reconsidered because, really, you're one of the less bleeding heartish people around here, aren't you? Not that I'm saying that you're mean or sociopathic or unkind or anything, you understand. Just that, like Cindy, you're pretty Tough. So would you rather be a pair of Dutchman's breeches, then? > Just out of curiosity, Elkins, does this pity you feel for > SYCOPHANTS like Peter extend to Mercy? Hmmm. I've been pondering this question for some time now, trying to decide how to respond. Part of the problem here is that I'm not quite sure what you mean by "mercy." If what you mean is "do you find yourself wanting Pettigrew to be spared further pain?" then I guess the answer would have to be yes. I think that he's a pretty piss-poor excuse for a human being, but I can't take pleasure in his suffering. But of course, there's a line to be drawn between wishing to spare people unnecessary pain and allowing them exploit you. I don't think for a minute, for example, that the proper response to Shrieking Shack ought to have been: "Aw, look. Poor Peter's really *miserable.* It just wouldn't be nice to send him to prison when he's already so desperately unhappy. So why don't we just let him go?" Even if that is, um. Sort of what ended up happening. In the end. But of course, no one could have predicted that. Well. Except for Trelawney, that is. If by "mercy" you mean "forgiveness," though, or "rapproachment," as in: do I find myself, while reading that scene, desperately wishing that Sirius or Remus would cut the poor guy a break already, give his shoulder a gentle compassionate squeeze, tell him that they understand, reassure him that it's all going to be okay, commiserate with him over what a rotten time he must have had these past thirteen years, and then hand him a nice cool glass of water, 'cause he must be really thirsty after all of those hysterics? No. Of course not. Peter has, after all, just spent pages and pages continuing to try to pin the blame on Sirius. He's in no position to ask for either their forgiveness or their friendship. And for what it's worth, he never does. Even Pettigrew doesn't do that. He does try to enlist their sympathies, but only for the purpose of swaying them to *mercy,* which isn't at all the same thing as forgiveness. In past discussions, Cindy has cited this as a big black mark against Peter in her books. "He never once apologizes!" she is wont to cry. But you know, I gotta say that to my mind, that's probably the only thing to Peter's credit in the entire scene. He may tell terrible lies. He may try to rationalize his behavior. He may shamelessly seek to exploit the childrens' youth and innocence. He may beg, and he may weep; he may whine and wheedle and grovel and cajole. But at least he never once tries to *apologize.* Because really, offering an apology under those circumstances would have been simply _obscene._ > When you see Peter writhing on the floor, crying, do you want to > comfort him, or are you content, though sad, to see him get his > just desserts? > --Dicentra, who probably shouldn't have mentioned dessert... Oh, no. You *really* shouldn't have mentioned dessert. ;-) Because now you've set me off on this subject. I've always had some genuine difficulties in comprehending the notion of "just desserts." I honestly just don't get how that's supposed to work. People have told me that I have an underdeveloped sense of justice, and perhaps that's true -- perhaps I do have some sort of moral blind spot where that's concerned -- because I can't say that I've really ever understood the concept at all. In Shrieking Shack, for example, what precisely *are* the just desserts that one might feel "content, though sad" to witness? A grown man grovelling on the floor, sobbing in helpless terror as he waits for the ex-friends he has betrayed to avenge themselves on him by committing an act of murder? I'm really not trying to be argumentative here, but I honestly just don't get it. No matter how hard I look, I can't seem to find anything the slightest bit contentment-inspiring about that. Not only is it unspeakably ugly, it also...well, it just doesn't do any *good.* It doesn't right any wrongs; it doesn't cause anyone to behave any better; it doesn't ensure anyone's safety; it brings no one any closer to redemption or virtue or even simple happiness. It doesn't make the world a better place in any way, shape or form. There's just nothing there *to* make me feel content. I mean, I'm not a saint, by any means. I understand anger, and I understand vengeance. I understand the phenomenon of taking vindictive pleasure in someone else's suffering, especially if they've wronged you terribly. But for me, that type of pleasure has nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with anger. And it isn't anything like "contentment" either. Gratification, perhaps, or satisfaction, but not contentment. And it can't exist side by side with sadness, either -- at least, not for me. Vindictiveness isn't a sad emotion. It can be gleeful, it can be grim, but it can't really be sad. I can even understand why one might feel "content, though sad" to witness the suffering of a certain type of smug, complacent, self- satisfied evil-doer. There's often that sense (completely incorrect, IMO, but nonetheless common) that perhaps people like that only behave so badly because they just don't *understand* suffering -- they don't know what it is, they don't know what it's like -- and that therefore a bit of personal suffering might somehow enoble them, or at least encourage them to think twice before inflicting it on others. Personally, I think that's utter nonsense -- suffering generally makes people worse, not better -- but I can at least understand the emotional logic behind it. But a miserable wretch like Pettigrew? Why would witnessing his suffering make me feel sad-but-content? It's not as if he's been *happy* for the thirteen years prior to PoA. He's been in hiding, and from his behavior as a rat, I get the impression that he's been pretty depressed and miserable as well. So there's not even that sense of "There. Now you see what it's like?" to provide any sense of emotional satisfaction. Nor does being unhappy cause Peter to behave any better. His fear and his misery are part and parcel of his wickedness: they don't make him better; they make him much much *worse.* So there's no contentment to be found there, either. No, from my perspective, Peter's terror in the Shack was just yet another big load o' misery heaped on top of the already-stuffed-to- bursting baggage of human suffering that was that entire situation. It's just more pain. I think that in order to think of it as "just desserts," you must have to view there as being some sort of equilibrium effect: there's some central fulcrum somewhere, and pain on one side balances out pain on the other, making it all come out even in some strange way. But I don't tend to view things that way. If there's a fulcrum, then I tend to view Pettigrew's misery as sitting on exactly the same side of it as the Potters' deaths, and Cedric's murder, and the Crouch family tragedy, and the Longbottoms' madness, and Karkaroff's predicament, and Sirius' wrongful imprisonment, and the fate of all of the DEs in the graveyard, and all of the other horrors of the entire conflict. If there's anything on the other side of that fulcrum, then it's certainly not more suffering. Not IMO, anyway. One of my favorite parts of GoF is the scene in which Harry, contemplating what he has just learned about the Longbottoms, finds himself identifying strongly with that jeering mob at Crouch's trial, and then pulls himself out of it by remembering Crouch's terror as he was led away by the dementors, as well as the fact that he was dead one year later. He then comes to the realization that all of that misery -- the Longbottoms', Crouch's -- really derives from exactly the same source. It's highly ironic, of course, because what Harry doesn't know is that not only did Crouch Jr. not really die, but that he is also acting as Harry's hidden adversary. But for me, that irony in no way weakens the power of the passage. It strengthens it tremendously. All that said, though, I did find Pettigrew's utter breakdown at the end of Shrieking Shack emotionally satisfying on one level. I found it satisfying because it came across as (finally!) his acknowledgement of having actually done something *wrong,* which was a particular relief after all of those pages of pathetic denials and lies and excuses. I don't really understand the "just desserts" thing, but I suppose that I do at least have enough of an innate sense of justice to find gratification -- a feeling of satisfactory resolution -- in admissions of culpability. So yes, on that level I did feel some satisfaction at the man's collapse into tears. Um...so does that answer your question at all? About reader sympathy, Cindy wrote: > Where I have trouble, though, is the idea that there is plenty of > sympathy, empathy and pity to go around. Take the Shack, for > instance. When it is the Trio versus Sirius, we're all routing for > the Trio and no one feels sympathy or empathy with Sirius. (Right?) > Even when Harry is standing over him threatening to blast Sirius. > (Right?) Rooting for Harry? Are you kidding? When Harry was standing over Sirius considering blasting him, I wanted to grab the dumb kid from behind and pin his arms. But then, that wasn't so much sympathy for Sirius as it was comprehension that the situation wasn't at all what Harry thought it was. And also... Well, how to say this without it coming across as either droolingly self-evident or insufferably self-righteous? I hate murder. I really do: I just *hate* it. I'm not crazy about killing at all, to tell you the truth, but murder is something that I simply and purely and absolutely detest. And to my mind, once someone is lying on his back staring at you while you're holding a weapon on him, it's no longer self-defense if you kill him. It's murder. So there was that. But there was also some sympathy for Sirius there as well: I didn't know quite what was up with him yet, true, but at that point, I was willing to extend my sympathy to *anyone* fresh from thirteen years in Azkaban. And like I've said, the person in the scene who's staring death in the face always gets first dibs on my sympathies. > Then it becomes Lupin, Sirius and the Trio versus Pettigrew. > Although Elkins makes a mighty fine case for Pettigrew needing some > sympathy and all, the problem I have is that I have a limited > reservoir of sympathy and empathy. It's a zero sum game for me. Hmmmm. Well, in real life, things can sometimes seem this way to me, because real life so often demands that you take some form of *action* when a conflict arises, and taking action in a time of conflict usually necessitates choosing sides. Extending ones sympathies equally to all sides of a conflict would make it extremely difficult, psychologically speaking, to take any form of action at *all* -- although of course, if you go too far in the other direction, then you fall into the trap of demonizing your enemies, which I really do think is a dangerous habit. And of course, pouring out ones sympathy and empathy to all and sundry in the real world leads directly to burn-out, if not to exploitation or nervous collapse. So I can sort of see what Cindy means here. But as a reader, I just don't have that problem. Since as a reader I can't actually *do* anything to affect the course of events, I don't find myself at all tempted to withdraw my sympathies from one side or the other of any given conflict. I feel for each and every character in Shrieking Shack. It doesn't feel particularly strange or confusing to me; it feels perfectly natural. Perhaps this is part of the reason that I usually fail to appreciate "just desserts" humor? Or think it kind of weird that so many people consider it "impossible" to feel equal affection for characters who hate each other within canon? > Now the graveyard is completely different. Cedric has just been > killed. Harry is tied to a gravestone with a filthy rag in his > mouth, but compared to what happened to Cedric, that isn't so bad. > Pettigrew, though. Pettigrew is cutting off his *hand*. And we know > how difficult this must be for him. . . . So there's some sympathy > to be had for little Peter there. Are you really claiming that your heart was bleeding for poor widdle Peter in the graveyard, Cindy? I mean, you weren't *really* feeling great sympathy for him there, were you? Really? 'Cause I gotta say, that seems kind of...um, out of character. Then, I guess the hand-lopping did show some Toughness, didn't it. I wrote: > ...for me, if there's one person in the scene in fear for his life, > then that's the person who *always* gets the first claim on my > sympathy. Cindy said: > Interesting. Then does this mean that Crouch Jr. had your sympathy > when the dementor sucked out his soul? Oh, Cindy, did you *have* to? You know, I try really hard to avoid envisioning that scene at all? It makes me sick just to contemplate it. I've a lot of feeling for young Crouch, you know, and dementors really do freak me out. But since you've forced me to go there, oh yeah. You bet he had my sympathy. In fact, I tried desperately to convince myself that he was unconscious at the time. But I didn't really manage to believe it for a moment. (Interesting note: just last night, my housemate brought up -- independently, I swear it! -- that very scene. And you know what he said? He said, "I keep trying to convince myself that Crouch was unconscious by the time the dementor got to him, because otherwise I can't stand to think about it." And then he was utterly bewildered -- and until I explained it to him, a little bit hurt as well -- when I burst into laughter.) I also felt a tremendous degree of sympathy for Crouch during his veritaserum confession. Sympathy, pity, empathy, identification... the whole package. > How about Buckbeak, and by extension, Hagrid? Hagrid, certainly. I felt for Hagrid. I never felt too much sympathy for Buckbeak, though, because in spite of being an apparently intelligent creature -- he could understand when he was being insulted, for example -- he showed no signs of having any comprehension of what was going on during that whole plotline. He doesn't even respond with any signs of sympathetic distress to Hagrid's grief -- unlike, say, Fang in CoS. If I'd believed for a moment that Buckbeak had the slightest understanding of what was about to happen to him, I probably would have felt some sympathy for him, too, but as it was, I didn't. > True, Sirius risks his life repeatedly for his friends. But then > again, we haven't seen Sirius knowingly walk into a situation where > he is facing a substantial risk of death. Haven't we? Or at least, if not seen it, then heard about it? I always figured that by insisting upon the Secret Keeper bluff, Sirius was actually volunteering to risk a fate possibly even *worse* than death. I mean, just look at what happened to the Longbottoms! No, I'm with Dicentra on this one. I've got no doubt that Sirius would die to protect his friends. But that line still makes me uncomfortabld, mainly because I'm not altogether certain that *I* would -- although of course I would like to believe that I would. And also because...well, he's just been ranting on and on about what a coward Peter is, right? What a coward he's *always* been, and what a weakling, and what a fundamentally opportunistic personality, and how the entire point of the bluff in the first place was that no one would ever suspect that they'd choose such a person to serve as their Secret Keeper, and... And, well, it just annoys me a bit, is all. I always find myself thinking: "Well, really now, Sirius! If you always knew that he was like that, then what the hell *else* did you expect?" Of course, I don't really believe for a moment that Sirius always believed Peter to be all of those things. He has, after all, had thirteen years with little else to do but to revise his opinion of Peter's character, and most of what he says in the Shack is not only spoken in anger, but also designed to wound. But even knowing that, there's always some strange Hermionesque part of my brain that wants to step in at that moment and say: "Er, excuse me. Mr. Black? Sirius?" -- Elkins From mlfrasher at aol.com Sun Mar 24 06:46:53 2002 From: mlfrasher at aol.com (garaeta) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 06:46:53 -0000 Subject: Prof. Sprout's First Name Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36911 I'm submitting this again, after spending a lot of time with the search button on the Lexicon (yes, of course I checked it.) the closest thing I found to the subject was when I searched the archives of the group and around 1800 someone asked the same question. I could not find a follow-up tho. Help. margaraeta From tabouli at unite.com.au Sun Mar 24 12:11:30 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 23:11:30 +1100 Subject: FLIRTIAC ticket, renovating ToadKeeper Message-ID: <007701c1d32e$7dab01c0$500edccb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 36912 Debbie: > Assuming that the MWPP Marauder's Map works like Mafalda's map (perhaps a large assumption but I'll assume anyway), Mrs. Norris' appearance on the Marauder's Map indicates that she is indeed human. And now I ask Captain Tabouli, will this suffice as a ticket to the FLIRTIAC dinghy? Would it help if I promised that my Snapetheory would include LOLLIPOPS? If I brought refreshments?< Captain Tabouli, who is sitting in her cabin staring speculatively at her new toad, hears a tentative knock at the door. It opens to reveal a woman who introduces herself as Debbie and asks about tickets for the Daring Dinghy FLIRTIAC. The Captain puts down the toad and reaches into a drawer, from which she extracts a shiny new FLIRTIAC ticket and a badge. The badge bears the FLIRTIAC acronym, and a picture of a thin, dust-coloured cat, which changes into a picture of a thin, dust-haired woman if you press it. Debbie thanks the Captain enthusiastically, who smiles regally and indicates that the refreshments may be given to George, her cabin boy, for distribution to passengers and crew. Debbie heads for the deck, surreptitiously wiping the toadmoisture from ticket and badge onto her shirt. Suddenly, the toad starts croaking hysterically and hopping up and down on her intray. Puzzled, the Captain picks up the toad (which is shaking like a blancmange) and glances at the now somewhat moist reports on which it was hopping. To her alarm, they are the latest set of reports from her spies, and concern none other than Cindy the Cinister, known agent of the violent FEATHERBOAS fraternity, and rumoured to be a very tough and dangerous customer. She takes up the report. Cindy: > Mr. Avery wants to know about that sculpture in the corner. Oh, yes. I've heard of this. It's called ToadKeeper, and it is the work of some obscure local artist. It's quite unusual, really. It appears to be full of holes, which you don't see very often in the better pieces.< The Captain's mouth falls open, and she turns to the toad, who is by now shivering behind a box of LOLLIPOPS badges. She reads on... >No, Mr. Avery, just leave it there, trust me. It looks even worse when your bring it out into the light. It's on loan to the museum, but the truth is that no one really wants it. I think I'll speak to the curator about donating it to the local scrap yard.< The museum? The *scrapyard*? Could this be the same woman who lovingly nurtured this poor toad through his tadpoledom and then hurled him overboard in a fit of embarrassment at the sight of a canon? A rush of sudden compassion comes over Captain Tabouli, and she retrieves the by now shrieking toad from under her pillow. There, there, she says soothingly. I won't let your theory be discarded so lightly. How about this: I'll go to the dangerous Cindy myself, and make her an offer for the sculpture. It's a renovator's dream! We'll tidy it up together, add some canons and maybe even build a little coracle to float it in. Then we'll sail it casually past Cindy's pier and her eyes will boggle to think she discarded an unrecognised masterpiece which may one day be worth millions. OK, so maybe that titchy canon about Great-uncle Algie giving Neville Trevor did put paid to the original ToadKeeper, which IIRC suggested that the souls of Neville's parents were concealed inside Trevor the Toad, and therefore Neville is the ToadKeeper and must carry him around at all times. However, I wouldn't write off the idea that Trevor may have some as yet unknown importance. After all: 1. Trevor is central to the characterisation of Neville in PS/SS, apparently as a prop to illustrate Neville's absent-mindedness. As Neville says, he "keeps on getting away from me". He gets lost on the Platform (to Gran's despair), he gets lost on the train (and for long enough for Neville to pass through Ron and Harry's compartment twice looking for him), he gets lost after arriving in Hogwarts and turns up in *someone else's boat*. Finally, and most tellingly, on the night when the Trio descend into the depths to fetch the Philosopher's Stone, Neville is skulking behind an armchair in the Common Room clutching Trevor... who appears to have Just Made Another Break For Freedom!! Does Trevor know what's afoot, and is he trying to escape and help Voldemort? Does Neville suspect something? What's this toad up to, I ask you? Is he merely an aimlessly straying pet, or is he Up To Something? He's not trying to escape, as he could have done that a hundred times over before Neville even arrived, and he always turns up eventually. However, the fact that he conveniently belongs to a boy in Harry's year at Hogwarts and is constantly roaming around seems a little suspicious to me. Although I, for one, have had enough unregistered Animagi to last me the rest of the series, you do have to wonder whether Trevor could be a spy. 2. OK. Then we have the canon that landed ToadKeeper on the scrapheap. Trevor can't be significant because Great-uncle Algie *bought* him. From a mere pet shop, as a present to Neville to celebrate his qualifying for Hogwarts. On the face of it, this looks bad for ToadKeeper. But then, we *do* have a precedent here, remember. Scabbers. Where did Scabbers come from? Sirius guesses that he found an old wizarding family to "take him in", but we don't know for sure. Some have speculated that "Scabbers" turned up and played with the Weasley children and they successfully pleaded to be allowed to keep him. All the same, it's not impossible that he was bought, a very cheap pet such as the Weasleys could afford to buy Percy, not a snazzy magical rat. Perhaps he bided his time in the pet shop and then leapt endearingly into Percy's arms when he recognised an old wizarding family, and Percy begged and begged and succeeded, as he was so cheap and uninspiring no-one else would buy him, and he was thus dirt cheap. Now, consider Trevor. Trevor does not appear to have any magical powers either, and is also an undesirable pet. Toads, as Ron and Hagrid remind us deprecatingly, are embarrassingly unfashionable presents, so much so that a self-conscious child might deliberately lose a toad rather than risk being teased. Knowing this, Evilspy!Trevor wouldn't have risked leaping lovingly into the arms of a child who might spurn him. No, no, he waited until the year when Harry Potter was starting school, inviegled himself into a pet shop and skulked unattractively in a corner fish tank looking as unappealing and unfashionable as he could. Enter Great-uncle Algie, burbling happily about his great-nephew Neville, got into Hogwarts, you know, hoping to buy him a pet as a congratulatory present. Ahaaa! thinks Trevor. Toads were *fashionable* in this old fool's day, and odds on his nephew will be in the very same year as Harry Potter... perfect! He drops the sullen act and starts croaking enticingly in his tank, and hopping playfully to and fro, fluttering his warty eyelids. Great-uncle Algie is charmed. When *he* was a lad, *he* had a toad, and it was his best friend in the world. This one seems a friendly chap, and such a bargain! Don't know how folks manage these days, the price of things being what they are. I'll take him! Mission accomplished. 3. The pets of significant characters have a habit of turning out to be important. Hagrid's pets have almost all ended up playing a central role in the plot. Scabbers turned out to be Pettigrew. Crookshanks collaborated with Sirius, and is, according to JKR, half-Kneazle, a fact which will doubtless be important in later books. Pigwidgeon mysteriously turned up just at the right moment to help Harry and Sirius communicate. Mrs Norris helps Filch spy on students and is, even if you don't float with FLIRTIAC, an intriguing animal who seems to have some important mystery about her (JKR herself has commented that the cats in the story have an important role to play). Dumbledore's pet phoenix contributed the feathers which form the very cores of Harry's and Voldemort's *wands*! OK, so not conclusive evidence, but interesting, isn't it? Especially when you consider how much air time JKR has devoted to Trevor the runaway Toad. Doesn't this hint that he might also be important in some way? 4. In the Celluloid-Thing-That-Must-Not-Be-Named, Steve Kloves inexplicably cut out half of Neville's scenes and gave a lot of his bumbling bits to Seamus instead. This effectively distracted from Neville's image as blundering, clueless boy for whom everything goes wrong. However, note note note, ladies and gentlemen, he did *not* cut the toad. Even though Neville was whittled down ruthlessly, Trevor the Toad made a definite cameo, like Norbert the Dragon. Might this not be because JKR decreed that Trevor was significant later and Could Not Be Cut?? 5. Neville, as we know, is a very private boy, who has stayed silent about what must be the tragedy of his life: his parents' insanity. He is humble and straightforward. If he suspected his toad of Suspicious Motivations, he might well just keep a discreetly careful eye on him without telling anyone. Note that at the start of the series, when he's just *got* his toad, Trevor is getting away all the time. By the end of PS/SS, however, note that he has wised up to Trevor, and apparently grabbed him just as he was making a break for it through the portrait hole to help Voldemort get the Stone. >From then on, we Never Hear About Him Losing His Toad Again! Neville's no fool. Fond as he is of Trevor, he can't help having a nagging suspicion that Trevor might have a dark side lurking under that warty skin. Unbeknownst to the other Gryffindor boys, he has regularly found Trevor following the Trio around, going through Harry's luggage, and lurking in the staffroom listening in on teachers' conversations. From then on, he has confined Trevor strictly to his pocket, which is why Snape is able to threaten him through Trevor in the PoA Potions lesson. 6. Which brings up to the most intriguing thing of all... why does Snape commit the supremely nasty deed of threatening to kill Neville's pet? Could it be because *Snape* too is suspicious? We know Snape is keeping a discreet protective eye on Harry, much as it sticks in his throat. Has he noticed that Trevor is Trouble? Is one of the reasons Neville fears him so much because Snape has regularly caught Trevor spying on Harry behind the scenes, and blasted him about it, demanding that he send the evil creature home??? Well, well, well. T.O.A.D.K.E.E.P.E.R. (The Odious Amphibian: Death-eater Knavishly Executing Espionage, Pursuing Evil Revenge) anyone? Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Sun Mar 24 12:51:21 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 12:51:21 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] New Book: Harry Potter's Reader's Guide by Phillip Nel References: Message-ID: <010201c1d332$99921dc0$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 36913 > Just found a new book at the library, a paperback from Continuum > Contemporaries; J.K. Rowling' Harry Potter Novels: A Reader's Guide > by Philip Nel. > > Is the book widely available, i.e. can I get it here in the U.K.?? It sounds interesting and anything that sheds light on the canon is useful.... I have only come across a few books on HP all of which have a large disclaimer about not being JKR authorised. Felicia Who is trying not to gloat about getting here HP DVD earlier than the U.S. and wondering where the one with the broomstick can be bought (see hpgalleries site) From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Mar 24 13:03:58 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 13:03:58 -0000 Subject: Harry the Saviour? (was Re: A quote, and RE: Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36914 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > I found a JKR quote: > < says, "I believe in God, not magic." In fact, Rowling initially was > afraid that if people were aware of her Christian faith, she would > give away too much of what's coming in the series. "If I talk too > freely about that," she told a Canadian reporter, "I think the > intelligent reader -- whether ten[years old] or sixty -- will be able > to guess what is coming in the books.">> > > I gloated at it, because to me saying that mentioning Christianity > will give the plot away means I'm right in my theory that Harry will die to destroy Voldemort. Well, if you go for analogies between HP and JC, why stop at the sacrificial death? What about the resurrection? With our modern embarassment with miracles, we sometimes tend to forget that redemption comes, for the believer, with the resurrection of Christ (true, in order to be redeemed you have to first die with Christ, but redemption *is* the resurrection). Come to think of it, Harry already represents a miraculous victory over death, as the only known person to survive the Avada Kedavra curse. Possibly he will repeat this overcoming of death in some form in the future? Naama From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Mar 24 13:13:24 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 13:13:24 -0000 Subject: DEs recognising one another? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36915 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elirtai" wrote: > Naama wrote: > > Voldemort would never allow a mechanism that would enable one DE > > to recognise another. Remember we're talking about a secret > > organisation - for one member to potentially be able to point out > ALL > > other members means that one traitor can bring down the whole > > organisation. > > I mostly agree with that. And think how they all are "hooded and > masked" when they answer the summons... but shortly after that, > Voldemort calls them all by their names. > (GoF chapter 33, "The Death Eaters"). > > Does that mean they already knew, rather than just suspected about > each other? Or is Voldemort changing the modus operandi in his second > rise to power? > Yes, it does seem as though Voldemort expects them to know each other, doesn't it? It doesn't harmonize with what we learn from the trials we see in the Pensieve. If all DEs know about all the other DEs, you would think that Snape for one (as Dumbledore's spy) would have pointed them all out then. There would have been no need to free Karkaroff in exchange for information regarding the DEs. So maybe Voldemort is changing his modus operandi now. Why, though? Is there any reason why he should be less cautious in his second rise than in his first? Is he stronger now than he was in the past? Naama From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 24 13:52:51 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 13:52:51 -0000 Subject: DEs recognising one another?-DE's at the graveyard (was Re: Who's Afraid Of The In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36916 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda" wrote: > > Naama said, about whether the DEs could recognize each other via > the Dark > > mark: > > > However, WHY would Voldemort allow his followers to > be so easily exposed? I would have thought that a secret organisation > such as the DEs would be much more careful about keeping the members' > identity secret, wouldn't you? Maybe it works as a mechanism for > identification only if both DEs activate it (meaning that the > revelation has to be voluntary - one DE can't force another DE to be > revealed to him, unless the other wills it also. Does that make > sense?) > > > Naama If I might add to this: on p. 588 of the US version of GoF, when Karkaroff was giving testimony before the Ministry (Harry was using Dumbledore's pensive), he stated that "He Who Must Not Be Named operated always in the greatest secrecy...His supporters...never knew the names of everyone of our fellows-He alone knew exactly who we all were-". Perhaps death eaters only knew those they would be working with. An example would be that Malfoy would know those DE's that assisted him with Muggle torture. Were the DE's that came to the graveyard the "inner circle" of the Dark Lord's. Were they his "executive board"? Gretchen From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 24 15:28:18 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 15:28:18 -0000 Subject: Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36917 This small detail has been nagging at me for a few years now. Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? We know that McGonagall "sent" it to Harry, but who paid for it? Would she have paid for it herself? Would she have made arrangements for the money to be taken out of Harry's vault at the bank? Can she do that? My off the wall theory on this is that Dumbledore is in contact, somehow, with Harry's parents and they are the ones that got the broom. I think that either James and Lily are ghosts (although JKR has stated in one of the interviews on the Scholastic website that only unhappy people become ghosts) or something similar or are not truly dead? They are in contact with D'dore and the three of them arranged for the broom. I still think that D'dore will turn out to be a relation of Harry's- perhaps his grandfather and thus would have some connection to James and Lily. Gretchen From editor at texas.net Sun Mar 24 16:24:11 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:24:11 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? References: Message-ID: <007201c1d350$55d74420$1d7763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36918 > I still think that D'dore will turn out to be a relation of Harry's- > perhaps his grandfather and thus would have some connection to James > and Lily. I refuse to entertain this theory, just as I refuse to entertain the one that says James and Lily are really alive, because they then would been willingly abandoning Harry to the Dursleys' ideas of childrearing. They would be worse than Crouch Sr. No. I think it is no more than the truth, that Harry has no other living relatives than the Dursleys. Why you people want Dumbledore to be such a bastard is beyond me; I don't think he's omniscient or all-good, and I do believe that of necessity he must remove himself emotionally to be able to move his "pieces" in the required fashion, but I will not make him a chessmaster to the degree required to leave a 15-month-old to face over a decade of mistreatment. --Amanda From nyarth at morsmordre.co.uk Sun Mar 24 18:02:33 2002 From: nyarth at morsmordre.co.uk (nyarth_meow) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 18:02:33 -0000 Subject: Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36919 Gretchen says: > > My off the wall theory on this is that Dumbledore is in contact, > somehow, with Harry's parents and they are the ones that got the > broom. I think that either James and Lily are ghosts (although JKR > has stated in one of the interviews on the Scholastic website that > only unhappy people become ghosts) or something similar or are not > truly dead? They are in contact with D'dore and the three of them > arranged for the broom. > I do believe JKR has not yet told us why some people become ghosts, and some people don't. Indeed, she has said "we will found out" in later books. I'm plumping for the -classical- theory that it has something to do with getting a decent burial or not, though I've got no evidence for that. I personally think - and hope - J and L are thoroughly dead and buried. This may sound a little harsh, but I think the "Oh, they're not dead after all, phew!" idea is a bit of a cliche, and a bit patronizing on the audience. I hate kids books where the dead come back for no reason other than sentiment. This never happens in real life and, as JKR insists she won't water down the evil because she doesn't want to lie to kids about the nature of the world, I hope she won't water down death for the same reasons. Make sense? ^_^ Nyarth From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Sun Mar 24 18:23:20 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 18:23:20 -0000 Subject: Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? References: <007201c1d350$55d74420$1d7763d1@texas.net> Message-ID: <001701c1d360$fd0a0ce0$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 36920 > > I still think that D'dore will turn out to be a relation of Harry's- > > perhaps his grandfather and thus would have some connection to James > > and Lily. > > I refuse to entertain this theory, just as I refuse to entertain the one > that says James and Lily are really alive, ....................." in the required fashion, > but I will not make him a chessmaster to the degree required to leave a > 15-month-old to face over a decade of mistreatment. > > --Amanda > Bearing in mind some of the wilder and wierder theories proposed , I don't think it's that far-fetched really. If only unhappy peole become ghosts James and Lily are candidates, having died an unhappy death. If there is protection in Privet Drive that surely Dumbledore would be right and, with the reluctant agreement of James and Lily, only sensible to protect Harry as much as he could. I don't necessarily agree with the hypothesis. However, like most theories, it cannot be discounted yet................ Felicia From porphyria at mindspring.com Sun Mar 24 21:57:20 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 13:57:20 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] McGonagall's justice, rennovated ToadKeeper (was: Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1D9E1000-3F72-11D6-A4C9-000393465128@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36921 Gretchen asked: > This small detail has been nagging at me for a few years now.? Where > did the Nimbus 2000 come from?? We know that McGonagall "sent" it to > Harry, but who paid for it?? Would she have paid for it herself??? > Would she have made arrangements for the money to be taken out of > Harry's vault at the bank?? Can she do that? I see no problem with the idea that McGonagall bought it herself, it seems oddly in-character. Although Harry insists upon seeing her as the embodiment of Justice, I don't really buy that. He mostly sees her in Transfiguration class -- of course she's going to be fair in that class, it's all Gryffindors! OTOH her near-abduction of him into her Quidditch team was both in violation of school rules and an undermining of Madam Hooch's authority. [Not to mention a dig at Snape, but we'll assume he encourages that sort of one-upsmanship.] Although she's occasionally willing to punish her own house, I don't see her justice as being any less arbitrary than any other aspect of the point system at Hogwarts. I'm always amused at the scene in CoS where Snape is cross-examining Harry over the body of the petrified Mrs. Norris -- McGonagall never says one word in Harry's defense until Snape threatens to have him suspended from the team. I'm not saying she doesn't care about Harry's welfare, but she does seem more willing to defend him and creatively interpret rules when her team stands to get the most benefit. So I don't have a problem believing that she bought the broom with her own money. I'm sure it would be a bit of a scandal if word got out, but that's probably why no one ever mentions to Harry exactly how the broom got paid for. OTOH I would be shocked to think that someone took the money out of Harry's own account without telling him. This wouldn't be a bending of school rules but more like outright robbery. I don't think McGonagall would do that. While posting, I'd like to compliment Tabouli on the new-and-improved ToadKeeper theory. Evil!Trevor -- I like it! I like it even though it obviates the need for my own belabored explanation of why Snape 'pretended' to intend poisoning Trevor. Maybe I like it *because* it obviates the need for my own belabored explanations. :-) But poor Neville, eh? We keep dreaming up ways in which the beings closest to him are all DE spys. If there needs to be any more canon support for the idea of the-pet-chooses-the-wizard then we also have Crookshanks. Granted, Crookshanks is neither evil nor an animagus, but we do know that he recognized that Scabbers was evil right off the bat, and we can assume that he seduced Hermione into buying him immediately afterwards so he could continue to pursue that rat. All cats can be seductive when they set their minds to it, so I supposed clever toads can also, at least to gullible great-uncles. ~~Porphyria, who is only now recovering from her hangover enough to creep back to a liquor store for that Lagavulin -- this bottle will be enchanted so only Eloise will be able to open it. ;-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Mar 24 19:40:51 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 19:40:51 -0000 Subject: Still Life with Memory Charm Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36922 Coming in late here...I have been thinking this over, and then I had to chase down all the responses. I was going to ask, Does anybody think Neville memory charmed himself, and what do I discover? Finwitch thinks just that, and no one has backed her up. For shame! Well, *I* think Neville charmed himself, too. It gets rid of all those messy questions, like a) why would the good guys do something so damaging and b) wouldn't the bad guys just knock off Neville instead, since they, unlike Lockhart, have enough power to do an AK. (Lockhart, as we've seen, can't duel his way out of a bathtub.) So Neville has charmed himself, and because everybody thinks he's almost a Squib, it hasn't dawned on anyone that he could have accidentally done such a powerful piece of magic. Thematically, it fits with the "numbing the pain will make it worse when you finally feel it" philosophy which Dumbledore espouses in GoF, and with Fudge refusing to face up to Voldemort's return. Plotwise, Harry is being made to face all these traumatic situations, so JKR needs to show us what would happen if he had been sheltered instead. So, that takes care of whodunnit, and why. Now we come to, has JKR given us any clues as to what Neville's charmed memory is hiding? We have had all sorts of speculation about Moody, Gran and the mysterious fourth man, but I think we have to account for the fact that Neville's main antagonist is Snape, and therefore the drama around Neville ought to be Snape-centric. Now, in the Pensieve scene, Dumbledore warns Harry off two subjects: talking to Neville about the condition of Neville's parents, and what it was that made Dumbledore decide that Snape had truly come back to Our Side. Could these two matters be related? I think they must be. Bang, you know. We know that the attack on the Longbottoms comes too late to be The Ambush. But what if there were two ambushes? We've speculated that Snape, in his desperate Harrylike thirst to prove himself, ambushed his old pals Rosier, Wilkes, Avery and the Lestranges. But Avery and the Lestranges talked their way out of Azkaban that time. Suppose that Snape was determined to get them, even after Voldemort's fall. He conceives a plan, telling the Lestranges that the Auror, Frank Longbottom, has information about Voldemort's current whereabouts. The Lestranges suppose that Snape the double agent actually is on their side, having managed to fool Dumbledore into thinking otherwise, as any clever dark wizard could do. So Snape sets up Frank Longbottom planning to double cross the Lestranges, rescue Frank and catch the Lestranges in the act. But the Lestranges, acting on information from their secret ally, young Barty, start to suspect Snape and mislead him about the timetable of the planned attack. Snape arrives on the scene too late. The Longbottoms Sr are a gibbering mess, and poor Neville appears to remember nothing about the attack, but does keep a traumatized repressed (not charmed) memory of Snape's wrathful arrival. Moody blames Snape for everything going wrong, and furthermore he's never been happy with our Severus because....um, Florence is Florence Moody. Mad-eye's daughter. (Pippin carefully notes that this was merely a casual flirtation, lest Captain Tabouli, who has her eye on redoing that stateroom with the stalactites, expel her from the good ship LOLLIPOPs.) Dumbledore does not want Harry comparing notes with Neville. He doesn't want either of them putting the pieces together and figuring all this out, because Neville is Not Ready, as Harry is Not Ready to learn why Voldemort wanted to kill him as an infant. How's that? ::Pippin stands back and prepares to be pelted with FEATHERBOAs:: PIppin From nancyr at esatclear.ie Mon Mar 25 00:19:30 2002 From: nancyr at esatclear.ie (RYANS) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 16:19:30 -0800 Subject: Hagrid not brave? (was Re: Hagrid, Keeper of the Keys) Message-ID: <002801c1d392$be5c71e0$498291c2@nancyr> No: HPFGUIDX 36923 Naama wrote: "But why doesn't Hagrid seem brave to you? Can you be more specific about it? " I reply: Well, It's no one particular moment, its' just generally he doesn't have any great shows of bravery, most of the characters have had their moments whereas Hagrid, when others found out about his mother being a giant, went to pieces. Surely bravery would constitute his being able to stand above (no pun intended!) that? lazyscientist. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jloveys at zoom.co.uk Sun Mar 24 17:52:45 2002 From: jloveys at zoom.co.uk (Jedi Knight Jo) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 17:52:45 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? References: Message-ID: <000c01c1d35c$b57cee00$01b968d5@jody> No: HPFGUIDX 36924 >>This small detail has been nagging at me for a few years now. Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? We know that McGonagall "sent" it to Harry, but who paid for it? Would she have paid for it herself? Would she have made arrangements for the money to be taken out of Harry's vault at the bank? Can she do that? Gretchen<< Good question. I've thought about this before too. It seems to be inferred in the books that she paid for it, but why would she show that much preferential treatement to one student? Or even would she have enough money to splash out on something that would obviously be expensive (being the top of the range broom it is), she is only a teacher after all - most teachers don't make that much money, although with the nature of her job, it's probably more dangerous than Muggle teaching with all those spells flying around. I dont' think she could be THAT desperate to see Gryffindor win the Quidditch cup. ;) I also don't see how she could have made arrangements for the money to be taken out of Harry's vault - it's his vault and his money, and banks don't tend to let people take money out of someone else's account. Of course there's nothing stopping her telling Harry she'd make arrangements to get him a broom if he paid - it could have been an 'off stage' conversation not considered important. He may have bought one on his trip to Diagon Alley if he hadn't been reminded by Hagrid and the Letter that first years weren't supposed to have brooms >>I think that either James and Lily are ghosts (although JKR has stated in one of the interviews on the Scholastic website that only unhappy people become ghosts) or something similar or are not truly dead?<< I remember someone saying that before about only unhappy people becoming ghosts, but then what about the Fat Friar? He's been described as being cheerful. If he was that cheerful in life, maybe something happened surrounding his death that made him stay? Or maybe he just wanted to keep people company. >>I still think that D'dore will turn out to be a relation of Harry's- perhaps his grandfather and thus would have some connection to James and Lily. Gretchen<< >>I refuse to entertain this theory, just as I refuse to entertain the one that says James and Lily are really alive, because they then would been willingly abandoning Harry to the Dursleys' ideas of childrearing. No. I think it is no more than the truth,that Harry has no other living relatives than the Dursleys. Why you people want Dumbledore to be such a bastard is beyond me; Amanda << I agree here. I don't think Dumbledore would be horrible enough to leave Harry with the Dursleys for ten years. Okay so when he originally left him there, he didn't know how they would treat Harry, but to people watching, it must have been obvious that they were treating him badly after a few months or a year. Dumbledore is a man who seems to be able to see the possible good in any situation (all those secret smiles at things most people wouldn't smile at?), but I don't see him leaving Harry there if he had any other alternative. I do, however, agree that he can be ruthless and not quite so kind and loveable on occasion. He'd have to be, to have beaten Grindlewald wouldn't he? --Jo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From meboriqua at aol.com Sun Mar 24 20:19:52 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 20:19:52 -0000 Subject: Hagrid not brave? (was Re: Hagrid, Keeper of the Keys) In-Reply-To: <002801c1d392$be5c71e0$498291c2@nancyr> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36925 "lazyscientist" wrote: its' just generally he doesn't have any great shows of bravery, most of the characters have had their moments whereas Hagrid, when others found out about his mother being a giant, went to pieces. Surely bravery would constitute his being able to stand above (no pun intended!) that?> I agree with you (which should be no surprise, considering my strong anti-Hagrid sentiments). I don't see Hagrid as particularly brave either. I'm not saying he's a coward, but I do think he's weak, which is usually not a part of bravery. What gives Hagrid strength is his size and occasionally, his position, as he seems to have quite a bit of freedom as groundskeeper for Hogwarts. I do see him as someone who falls apart at the drop of a hat; he blubbers all over the place, including to Harry and friends. If he was a truly brave person, he would have strutted out to class the morning after the Buckbeak incident and carried on with something more challenging than flobberworms, and he would have done much the same when his giant heritage was made public. I shall say no more, as I've bemoaned how I feel about Hagrid many times here. I'm just waiting for Cindy to jump in and join me! --jenny from ravenclaw******************************* From editor at texas.net Sun Mar 24 20:18:22 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 14:18:22 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Still Life with Memory Charm References: Message-ID: <000c01c1d371$0d0b63e0$947763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36926 Pippin said > Well, *I* think Neville charmed himself, too. It gets rid of all those > messy questions, like a) why would the good guys do something > so damaging and b) wouldn't the bad guys just knock off Neville > instead, since they, unlike Lockhart, have enough power to do > an AK. (Lockhart, as we've seen, can't duel his way out of a > bathtub.) But he can't have Memory Charmed himself, because that is a specific charm, and we're talking about a child who maybe would be able to say a couple words, maybe two-word sentences if he's precocious. If Neville did unto himself, it's just a suppression, albeit with a magical aspect to it. I'm iffy about this, because Neville's behavior is to typical of people who actually have the real Memory Charm cast on them. --Amanda From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Sun Mar 24 21:01:18 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 21:01:18 -0000 Subject: Harry the Saviour? (was Re: A quote, and RE: Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36927 Catlady found a JKR quote: <> Then Catlady:<> And Naama replied: < Come to think of it, Harry already represents a miraculous victory over death, as the only known person to survive the Avada Kedavra curse. Possibly he will repeat this overcoming of death in some form in the future?>> Now me: There are so many symbols of resurrection/rebirth surrounding Harry! The phoenix (immortality, resurrection), holly (rebirth), lion (rebirth, power), gryphon (salvation)... And surrounding his parents--stag (resurrection, Tree of Life), willow (Tree of Life, immortality, protection, miraculous births), the name Lily (purity, resurrection). I think--we're supposed to see Harry as the chosen child. The one who will bring rebirth. But I hope that it's sort of a split process- -that his parents did the sacrifical death part, leaving the rebirth/salvation to him... Because--I just feel so protective towards the kid! Ever since those scenes with Lupin, and the boggart... He's had such a crappy life so far, I hate to think his choice between "right & easy" will have to be to choose death. Extra Credit questions: 1. If Harry doesn't have to choose between life & death, what else might his right vs easy decision be about? 2. Would AK actually work on Harry now? Or does Voldemort just think it will? Caroline From Edblanning at aol.com Sun Mar 24 21:16:53 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 16:16:53 EST Subject: Toadkeeper/ Dark Marks/ Why did Voldy go to Godric's Hollow?/Still life with mem Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36928 Tabouli, updating the toadkeeper theory: > T.O.A.D.K.E.E.P.E.R. (The Odious Amphibian: Death-eater Knavishly Executing > Espionage, Pursuing Evil Revenge) anyone? Excellent! Our first amphibious Flying Hedgehog! ................................ Now a bit more on Dark Marks. It struck me today what a blunt instrument they are when it comes to summoning DEs to Voldemort. First of all, Voldy has to have a DE at his side at the time - well, this is likely I suppose - but also, apparently he can only summon the whole lot of them at once. What if he wants to summon an individual or a cell individually? Might lead to some problems selecting out from the ranks the ones he wants, without giving their identities away to the others. Perhaps this is the reason for them having set places in the circle : Voldemort is the only one who knows *everyone's* position. There also seems to me to be a great danger of splinching. ...................................... There has been some discussion about DE opus operandi recently, in particular, whether and why Voldy went to Godric's Hollow relatively unsupported. Can I turn the question round? In other words, what was so important that Voldy went *at all*? Why not just send the evil underlings instead? Obviously, this was something both important and personal. But what I only took on board today was Hagrid's insinuation that he was trying to get them on board, convert them to the Dark Side. Why did Hagrid imply this? Any thoughts, anyone? ................................... Pippin: >So Snape sets up Frank Longbottom planning to double cross >the Lestranges, rescue Frank and catch the Lestranges in the >act. But the Lestranges, acting on information from their secret >ally, young Barty, start to suspect Snape and mislead him about >the timetable of the planned attack. Snape arrives on the scene >too late. The Longbottoms Sr are a gibbering mess, and poor >Neville appears to remember nothing about the attack, but does >keep a traumatized repressed (not charmed) memory of Snape's >wrathful arrival. Oh, Pippin! I can't criticise it as a theory, but I can't bear the thought of yet *another* of Snape's carefully conceived plans going wrong! Eloise Drinking Porphyria's health in Lagavulin (truly) and forgiving her for her outrageous behaviour the other day - accusing me of being too nice (watch it, I'm a passive agressive, really), and abandoning me on the beach with a half empty bottle whilst she went off to play with Eileen. And amused, watching Gosford Park last night:(as near as I can remember), 'We don't have Bourbon, we have Scotch. There's ordinary, or single malt.' 'I'll have ordinary; I'm an American.' Which reminds me of something else. Someone suggested that the Beauxbatons horses drinking single malt was a hint via analogy with Bourbon that Beauxbatons was in the Bourbon region. I think this is unlikely to be a clue, as to a Brit, (as you've probably gathered by now), the term single malt implies Scotch. Bourbon isn't widely drunk in the UK. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Mar 24 20:52:42 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 20:52:42 -0000 Subject: Still Life with Memory Charm, Magic In-Reply-To: <000c01c1d371$0d0b63e0$947763d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36929 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda" wrote: > Pippin said > > > Well, *I* think Neville charmed himself, too. It gets rid of all those > > messy questions, like a) why would the good guys do something > > so damaging and b) wouldn't the bad guys just knock off Neville > > instead, since they, unlike Lockhart, have enough power to do > > an AK. (Lockhart, as we've seen, can't duel his way out of a > > bathtub.) > > But he can't have Memory Charmed himself, because that is a specific charm, > and we're talking about a child who maybe would be able to say a couple > words, maybe two-word sentences if he's precocious. If Neville did unto > himself, it's just a suppression, albeit with a magical aspect to it. I'm > iffy about this, because Neville's behavior is to typical of people who > actually have the real Memory Charm cast on them. Little Kevin (about Neville's age) - did a charm that enlarged the slug - not incantation, only Daddy's wand. Later, Mr. Crouch-as-Moody enlarges a Spider - using incantation and wand. Ms. McGonagall is able to return transfigured Malfoy into his true shape using wand only - Sirius/Lupin use an incantation. The Magic Harry did without knowing - well, it is all pretty specific: Jump onto school roof, turn teacher's hair blue... Wand-waving and incantation help to *control* (Dumbledore is able to control without both) that magic, but is not necessary to perform it. Neville, with his uncontrolled magic -- well, he *does* tend to harm himself when in stress by magic. So Neville, or his uncontrolled magic, did the memory charm. And Neville's innate magic is very strong - it's just that he keeps hurting himself with it. And on the theory about Snape... Yes, it is *necessary* that Snape was somehow involved with Neville's worst experience to become his *worst* fear. I believe it also has to do with *why* Dumbledore trusts Snape. Yes, he may have been the double-agent, keeping both Voldemort and Dumbledore in the belief that he's on their side. Not yet enough to trust, though. Perhaps Snape was trying to save the Longbottoms? It could be another matter, though - involving a life- debt. It *would* be interesting plot-twist to find that a)Dumbledore owes Snape a life-debt and trusts him because of that, BUT b) Snape only saved AD to get that and is really on Voldemort's side! Also.. *why* is Snape's hair so dirty? Does it have something to do with the un-paid life-debt? Would he melt like Evil Witch of the East (or was it West) in the Wizard of Oz if he was exposed to *pure* water? Life-debt doesn't seem to prevent killing (if we presume that bond holds between Father&Son Crouch). "Finwitch" From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Mar 24 21:10:35 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 21:10:35 -0000 Subject: House elf Ownership/possesion In-Reply-To: <007301c1d2c8$88e0a380$0c7763d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36930 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda" wrote: > If the elves belonged to the families, their would not need to be a House > Elf Relocation Office. I think there is a complex bond, a 3-way > relationship, involving the elf, the location, and the owner of the > location. Status as the owner of the location gives the owner certain powers > over the elf, and the elves are bound to obey not the wizard per se, but the > owner of their location. For Winky, Mr. Crouch had the power to free her, > but what he did was banish her from her location, and her service to its > owners. > > Why else, then, would they be associated as strongly with places as with old > families? The Weasleys are an old wizarding family themselves. > > --Amanda, Yes... Belonging to a place. Goes much like old folk-tales here. If Dobby was house-elf to the Potter-house that was *exploded* by Evil Voldemort, thus freeing Dobby from *place*. Harry, a minor, was the *only* one left of the *family*. A possible solution for Winky&Dobby becoming happy together, would be if Harry or Sirius bought Crouch Manor and brought the two with him. Get Sirius free and live in Crouch's old Manor! "Finwitch" From huntleyl at mssm.org Sun Mar 24 21:52:58 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 16:52:58 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid not brave? (was Re: Hagrid, Keeper of the Keys References: Message-ID: <005801c1d37e$433e9740$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 36931 Uncmark said: >Hagrid is a rare being, caring and accepting of everyone. He is >rarely selfish and never petty. Would you allow Draco and his buddies >to act out without following the Snape Model and taking off points? Mmm...but what about in GoF, when Hagrid tells Harry to stay away from Krum and basically tells him that foreign wizards were scum and not-like-us? Granted, he was still smarting from Madame Maxime's behavior during the Yule Ball, but still. I think Hagrid is more of an animal person than a people person (obviously). He may have infinite acceptance for beasts, but with humans, he's not so patient. Remember his assertion in PS/SS that *all* Slytherins were bad and not *one* bad wizard hadn't been in Slytherin? Furthermore, as with the whole elf rights thing, he doesn't seem to think much for himself. Many may have been impressed by his speech to the trio about V's rise at the end of GoF, but I believe his lack of fright/disbelief is less due to his own thought processes, and more due to Dumbledore's attitude toward the whole thing. Hagrid idolizes Dumbledore, and if D. says V. is back and we're going to fight him, well -- that's that for ole Rubeus. *wonders if this will ever have significance in the plot* Say, what if Dumbledore was going to let Harry put himself in danger (because Harry *has* to put himself in danger in order to save the world or whatever) and Hagrid disagrees -- wants to help Harry, protect him, that sort of thing. I wonder who Hagrid is more loyal to. hum. laura do ya worry that you're not liked how long till you break? you're happy cause you smile but how much can you take? ordinary boy ordinary life well ordinary's just not good enough today OLP (I probably mangled this song to death -- forgive me.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 24 21:51:14 2002 From: ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com (Melanie Brackney) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 13:51:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: No subject Message-ID: <20020324215114.35360.qmail@web10901.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36932 >>I still think that D'dore will turn out to be a relation of Harry's- perhaps his grandfather and thus would have some connection to James and Lily. Gretchen<< >>I refuse to entertain this theory, just as I refuse to entertain the one that says James and Lily are really alive, because they then would been willingly abandoning Harry to the Dursleys' ideas of childrearing. No. I think it is no more than the truth,that Harry has no other living relatives than the Dursleys. Why you people want Dumbledore to be such a bastard is beyond me; Amanda << Okay JKR did state in one of her interviews that ghosts are not always the most happy of people I agree. But I mean lets look at it this way James and Lily could very well be unhappy in their after life. There son is forced to live with the Dursley family, who basically abused him. Came to Hogwarts insecure and now has to deal with all the pressures that come from his surviving the Voldemort attacks. I wouldn't be happy either if that is the case.. 1. If Harry doesn't have to choose between life & death, what else might his right vs easy decision be about? I personally think there is a part of Harry that really would like to recruit Harry. The "Easy" thing for him to do would be to go with this to become a deatheater. I think that he will be faced with many situations where he will face this and ulitimately have to make a decision. I am sure Voldemort will target his friends, Sirius, Classmates, love interests you name it. 2. Would AK actually work on Harry now? Or does Voldemort just think it will? No one knows really...we just have to wait and see. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com Sun Mar 24 21:58:56 2002 From: ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com (Melanie Brackney) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 13:58:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hagrid and the Weasley house elf In-Reply-To: <002801c1d392$be5c71e0$498291c2@nancyr> Message-ID: <20020324215856.58766.qmail@web10908.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36933 Well, It's no one particular moment, its' just generally he doesn't have any great shows of bravery, most of the characters have had their moments whereas Hagrid, when others found out about his mother being a giant, went to pieces. Surely bravery would constitute his being able to stand above (no pun intended!) that? lazyscientist. \ We all even the great Harry Potter have areas in our life that we loose control of. I believe the whole mother issue with Hagrid was an example of that. And may I add that MANY of the Gryffindor show some since non bravery at certain times. I mean look at Ron he got all upset about a spider, if your ideas are correct you are assuming that most brave people would be able to defy this. I believe that the best way to assess bravery is to see how they preform when the pressure is on them. That's just my thought. Also, who is to say that the Weasley's want a house elf. I do believe that Arthur at one point said that he agreed with HErmione about the injustices that plagued many house elfs. Why should we assume that he would Winky to be their house elf. Melanie RYANS wrote: Naama wrote: "But why doesn't Hagrid seem brave to you? Can you be more specific about it? " I reply: Well, It's no one particular moment, its' just generally he doesn't have any great shows of bravery, most of the characters have had their moments whereas Hagrid, when others found out about his mother being a giant, went to pieces. Surely bravery would constitute his being able to stand above (no pun intended!) that? lazyscientist. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT ________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!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From huntleyl at mssm.org Sun Mar 24 22:20:56 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 17:20:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry as Arthur? WAS: Harry the Saviour? References: Message-ID: <005e01c1d382$2b014fc0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 36934 While we're discussing parallels between HP and Christ, I'd like to point out some similarities between the series and Arthurian *legend* < References: <005e01c1d382$2b014fc0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36935 At 5:20 PM -0500 3/24/02, Laura Huntley wrote: > >8 - The sorcerer's stone -- the holy grail -- you know what I'm getting at. And the Goblet of Fire, for that matter. >9 - Excalibur and Harry's wand seem to mirror each other also. See below . . . >1 - Ron might betray Harry (Lancelot is Arthur's most trusted >lieutenant, betrays him) I see Ron more as Gawain than Lancelot. Note also that this brings back the whole Percival/Percy question, and the implied connection between Sir Kay (who turned out to be a pretty decent knight after all) and Dudley. >4 - Someone (lady of the lake-esqe) will give Harry a special weapon >(wand?) to help him fight V. after his special wand is broken/lost. This already happened in the Chamber of Secrets. Riddle took his wand, Fawkes and the Sorting Hat played the part of the Lady of the Lake, and Harry pulled the Sword out the Hat. (Random: does that mean he's going to pull the rabbit out of the Stone later?) -- - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon boggles at earthlink.net === Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 === GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+ c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+ ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U! From editor at texas.net Mon Mar 25 02:58:33 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 20:58:33 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Still Life with Memory Charm, Magic References: Message-ID: <000a01c1d3a8$f44c6ba0$9b7c63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36936 Finwitch said > Also.. *why* is Snape's hair so dirty? Does it have something to do > with the un-paid life-debt? Would he melt like Evil Witch of the East > (or was it West) in the Wizard of Oz if he was exposed to *pure* > water? Snape's hair is oily or greasy. It has never, to my recollection, been identified as dirty. And I have a few less far-fetched reasons it might be oily or greasy: --Snape is someone who naturally has oily hair. I've known a few, including a guy who had to shower twice a day to keep from looking like he'd run a marathon. --As someone who (every so often) cooks, one's hair gets icky if one has been hanging over a pot all day. In my case, it's a normal pot making grease-laden steam. In Snape's case, God only knows what is rising in the fumes, but I'm betting it's *way* more than enough to grease up his hair. I will also point out that while his teeth are crooked and not the whitest, even when he was right in Harry's face, there was no mention of bad breath. I defy anyone to dig up a canon reference to Snape having bad hygiene. He's not the nicest dude on the planet, but he's not dirty. --Amanda From editor at texas.net Mon Mar 25 03:06:17 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 21:06:17 -0600 Subject: Dumbledore is NOT a relative (was Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from?) References: <007201c1d350$55d74420$1d7763d1@texas.net> <001701c1d360$fd0a0ce0$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> Message-ID: <001c01c1d3aa$096ca260$9b7c63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36937 Felicia said, regarding my vehement disagreement that Dumbledore is Harry's grandfather or other relation: > Bearing in mind some of the wilder and wierder theories proposed , I don't > think it's that far-fetched really. If only unhappy peole become ghosts > James and Lily are candidates, having died an unhappy death. If there is > protection in Privet Drive that surely Dumbledore would be right and, with > the reluctant agreement of James and Lily, only sensible to protect Harry as > much as he could. > > I don't necessarily agree with the hypothesis. However, like most theories, > it cannot be discounted yet................ I think it can. The protection in Privet Drive is not a regional thing; they didn't plunk Harry down with a random family who lives in a naturally occurring safe area. The intimation is that Harry is safe there because of some magic having to do with being with his own kin, his family. If Dumbledore were related to Harry, the same protection could be engineered for Harry with Dumbledore. There would be no need to involve the Dursleys; if Dumbledore were a relative, the old magic would protect Harry with him, too. So if Dumbledore is a relative, the secondary reason to put Harry there, even if it's a ghastly place--that he is protected there--is no reason at all. Which brings me back to refusing to entertain the theory. --Amanda From huntleyl at mssm.org Mon Mar 25 03:44:47 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:44:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore is NOT a relative (was Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from?) References: <007201c1d350$55d74420$1d7763d1@texas.net> <001701c1d360$fd0a0ce0$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> <001c01c1d3aa$096ca260$9b7c63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: <000701c1d3af$690a3a20$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 36938 Amanda said: >I think it can. The protection in Privet Drive is not a regional thing; they >didn't plunk Harry down with a random family who lives in a naturally >occurring safe area. The intimation is that Harry is safe there because of >some magic having to do with being with his own kin, his family. If >Dumbledore were related to Harry, the same protection could be engineered >for Harry with Dumbledore. There would be no need to involve the Dursleys; >if Dumbledore were a relative, the old magic would protect Harry with him, >too. This got me thinking. Isn't Harry "safe" with Dumbledore anyway? I mean, he's considered "safe" at Hogwarts -- I assume because this is Dumbledore's stronghold (Yes, I know, it's got all kinds of special protection, but still..Sirius could get in - it's not *that* special, all on it's own..) So, other than the fact that it would certainly put a cramp in his style, why *didn't* Dumbledore raise him? Why send him to the Dursleys at all? There must be something we're not being told here -- or at least a gaping plot hole. Maybe D had underlying reasons for sending Harry to live with the Dursleys. Reasons we don't (dun dun dun) fully understand as of yet. oh well laura hi ho hi ho it's off to work we go hi ho hi ho hi ho hi ho it's off to work we go [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com Mon Mar 25 03:42:48 2002 From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 03:42:48 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore is NOT a relative (was Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36939 >From: "Laura Huntley" >Maybe D had underlying reasons for sending Harry to live with the Dursleys. > Reasons we don't (dun dun dun) fully understand as of yet. In the beginning of SS, Dumbledore says he's leaving Harry with the Dursleys because he doesn't want Harry to grow up knowing that he's The Boy Who Lived and with all that fame with could "turn anyone's head..." So, in essence, he was saving Harry from the fickle finger of fame. J _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From huntleyl at mssm.org Mon Mar 25 04:26:49 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 23:26:49 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore is NOT a relative (was Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from?) References: Message-ID: <001101c1d3b5$4824d800$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 36940 Jake Storm said: >In the beginning of SS, Dumbledore says he's leaving Harry with the Dursleys >because he doesn't want Harry to grow up knowing that he's The Boy Who Lived >and with all that fame with could "turn anyone's head..." >So, in essence, he was saving Harry from the fickle finger of fame. Yes, but doesn't that strike you as a little...weak? I mean, subjecting a child to that kind of emotional deprivation and well, torture? Just so he won't get a big head? Lots of kids in Harry's position would have turned out awful -- antisocial, cruel, unable to connect with other human beings. It seems alot to risk for such an insignificant reason. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com Mon Mar 25 04:46:27 2002 From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 04:46:27 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore is NOT a relative (was Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36941 >From: "Laura Huntley" > >From: Jake Storm: > >So, in essence, he was saving Harry from the fickle finger of fame. >Yes, but doesn't that strike you as a little...weak? I mean, subjecting a >child to that kind of emotional deprivation and well, torture? Just so he >won't get a big head? Lots of kids in Harry's position would have turned >out awful -- antisocial, cruel, unable to connect with other human beings. >It seems alot to risk for such an insignificant reason. Yes, but Dumbledore, while wise, is not omniscent. He couldn't know (to the best of our knowledge) that the Dursleys were going to be cruel to Harry. He had no idea just how xenophobic and awful they would end up. In most any other circumstance, you'd have nobody gainsay you if you said "The boy's only family are an aunt and uncle, already raising a child of similar age. He should go there." We're only speaking with hindsight. J _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From DMCourt11 at cs.com Mon Mar 25 05:05:08 2002 From: DMCourt11 at cs.com (bookraptor11) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 05:05:08 -0000 Subject: Ghosts ( Was Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from?) In-Reply-To: <000c01c1d35c$b57cee00$01b968d5@jody> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36942 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jedi Knight Jo" wrote: > >>I think that either James and Lily are ghosts (although JKR > has stated in one of the interviews on the Scholastic website that > only unhappy people become ghosts) or something similar or are not > truly dead?<< > > I remember someone saying that before about only unhappy people >becoming ghosts, but then what about the Fat Friar? He's been >described as being cheerful. If he was that cheerful in life, maybe >something happened surrounding his death that made him stay? Or >maybe he just wanted to keep people company.< Also Professor Binns, who continues to teach the History of Magic. Maybe it's only a question of deciding to stay. While unhappiness gives some the willpower to stay, others (like Binns) may just be such creatures of habit that they don't want to leave. Or perhaps Binns really loves to teach. Other ghosts might have a mission or specific task they want to perform before they can rest. Which brings me to the graveyard scene in GOF. Harry doesn't know whether the people released from V's wand are ghosts; they are grey and more solid than ghosts. Dumbledore is very careful to call them echoes and shadows, spell residues. Whatever they are, on p.667 of the hardcover American edition, Lily tells Harry, "When the connection is broken, we will linger for only moments..." If only for this reason, I don't think James and Lily are staying around. I do wonder if they are ghosts, or would be if they'd made the decision to stay. As others have posted about other things in the series, probably Dumbledore knows more than he's saying. Donna From uncmark at yahoo.com Mon Mar 25 07:25:01 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 07:25:01 -0000 Subject: Gringotts Was (Re: Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? ) In-Reply-To: <000c01c1d35c$b57cee00$01b968d5@jody> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36943 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Gretchen wrote: >This small detail has been nagging at me for a few years now. > Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? We know that > McGonagall "sent" it to Harry, but who paid for it? Would she have > paid for it herself? Would she have made arrangements for the > money to be taken out of Harry's vault at the bank? Can she do that? "Jedi Knight Jo" wrote: > Good question. I've thought about this before too. It seems to be > inferred in the books that she paid for it, but why would she show >that much preferential treatement to one student? > I also don't see how she could have made arrangements for the money > to be taken out of Harry's vault - it's his vault and his money, > and banks don't tend to let people take money out of someone else's > account. Of course there's nothing stopping her telling Harry > she'd make arrangements to get him a broom if he paid - it could > have been an 'off stage' conversation not considered important. I posted before a question about Gringott's Bank. In Goblet of Fire (Ch. 5 & 10) Mrs. Weasley offers to pick up Harry's school supplies while he is at the world cup and when he returns he finds she not only shopped, but got him gold out of his vault. How? He never gave her permission(although he would have given it willingly). In the Potterverse you see little of the moneychanging items that muggles have (of course it's told from the POV of an 11-15 year old boy). We see no checks or even paper money (Mr. Weasley is confused by muggle pound notes in GofF). Could Harry ask Grongotts for more money by Owl Post? I wonder if Harry at age 15 could write a will and leave his Gringotts gold to the Weasley's, or would it all go to the Dursleys? ANYWAY... My point is that from GoF we see there is a wizard mechanism to take money out of Harry's account. Possibly Dumbledore is Harry's 'wizard guardian' empowered to handle Harry's wizard affairs. He could have approved the purchase of the Nimbus 2000 with Harry's money (no conflict of interest) and have approved Molly to withdraw funds for school shopping in GoF. It would never happen in the Muggle world, but Dumbledore is who he is and Molly is the most trustworthy unselfish witch I've ever read about. It would not have been unreasonable if Dumble dore could have sent some extra galleons to the Weasley's for Harry's expenses staying with them in books 2 & 4. Teenagers eat a lot of food in two weeks and trips to the World Cup can't be cheap. Uncmark From rosefee at citynet.net Mon Mar 25 06:40:53 2002 From: rosefee at citynet.net (Rose) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 01:40:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Still Life with Memory Charm, Magic References: <000a01c1d3a8$f44c6ba0$9b7c63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: <008001c1d3c8$05b12560$8044903f@desktop> No: HPFGUIDX 36944 Amandas response to Finwitch's: > --Snape is someone who naturally has oily hair. I've known a few, including > a guy who had to shower twice a day to keep from looking like he'd run a > marathon. > --As someone who (every so often) cooks, one's hair gets icky if one has > been hanging over a pot all day. In my case, it's a normal pot making > grease-laden steam. In Snape's case, God only knows what is rising in the > fumes, but I'm betting it's *way* more than enough to grease up his hair. > > I will also point out that while his teeth are crooked and not the whitest, > even when he was right in Harry's face, there was no mention of bad breath. > I defy anyone to dig up a canon reference to Snape having bad hygiene. He's > not the nicest dude on the planet, but he's not dirty.< -------- I have this to add to this part, that my Hubby washes his Hair Daily (when he is off, everyother day)and overnight it gets greasy !!! It's just how his hair works, he is a Salesperson (no not under pressure) but he does his share of running around, but the point of this response is, that there ARE People out there whos Hair is naturally Oily but are hygenically clean. I hope I done this right this time!?! SnapesRose -------- > > ________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 finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Mar 24 22:43:09 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:43:09 -0000 Subject: Azkaban's location/Accidental Magic. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36945 oboakk wrote: > Hmmm....another thing that's been bothering me: How did Sirius know > where *Harry* lived? And did he really expect he would be able to > see him? After all, everyone believed him to be guilty, and I think > he would have suspected that people would be trying to protect Harry > from him. And marinafrants replied: > Well, I don't think he expected to walk up to the front door in human > form and be invited in for a cuppa. I think he just wanted a glimpse > of Harry, which he did manage to get in his dog form. He could have known > about the Dursleys from being friends with James and Lily, And Hagrid told Sirius Harry'd be there: "They're his only relatives.. " - and Sirius decided to lend his motorbike before Harry'd starve to death due to their quarrel. As to how Sirius got there - in his dog form - well... 1) He has no wand 2) He's in *hurry* and in distress, angry, scared, worried... you name it. 3) Accidental magic happens when in distress. All Sirius' emotions were into one goal - out of Azkaban, to see and protect Harry, to get at the rat... But anyway, Accidental Magic helps him. He doesn't have to think it - or even realise it. We do know that little magical kids do Accidental Magic all the time. Then they get a wand and go to school - to learn how to control their magic. Accidental Magic can get real risky (As Neville shows). It's rare to happen with adults who have learned control, but it *could* happen. (I think the explosing door was Dumbledore's *accident*. Only time Incantation AND wand for Dumbledore I recall is that *stupefy*. Very helpful to control your magic). "Finwitch" From aiz24 at hotmail.com Mon Mar 25 14:54:32 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:54:32 -0500 Subject: ADMIN: S - l - o - w posting Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36946 Hi all! Some posters have found that their posts are taking a very long time to show up or getting lost entirely. Apparently there's a Legato Charm on Yahoo today. You may want to keep copies of your posts so that if they don't show up you can repost. (Give it several hours.) Amy Magical Moderator Team _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From chynarose8 at hotmail.com Mon Mar 25 01:45:41 2002 From: chynarose8 at hotmail.com (Michelle Strauss) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 20:45:41 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry as Arthur? WAS: Harry the Saviour? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36947 Laura wrote: >>While we're discussing parallels between HP and Christ, I'd like to point out some similarities between the series and Arthurian *legend* << and then began to list those similarities. She also guessed as to what it all may mean. >>1 - Ron might betray Harry (Lancelot is Arthur's most trusted lieutenant, >>betrays him)<< I'd say that Ron won't out right betray Harry, so much as put Harry in a position where Harry would have to choose between what he knows is right and what he *feels* is right. Lancelot 'betrayed' Arthur by having an afair with Gwenevere. Which leaked out into the general pool of knowledge and forced to Arthur to decide between proving he wasn't above the law or sparing both his friend and his wife. That said, Harry will side with what he knows to be right, and Ron will resolve the problem by solving it himself (saving Gwenevere) and then disaprearing in 'disgrace'. >>2 - Maybe theory that Dumbledore somehow set up James and Lily's relationship in order to get Harry (the boy that can vanquish Voldy) actually holds some water (I'd really hate to think this).<< Interesting. I *could* see Dumbledore setting James and Lily up, although I'm not too sure about his doing it just to get Harry. From what I can tell, James was a very powerful wizard. And Dumbledore strikes me as a person who does things for multiple reasons. Of course this particular line of thought is directing me to towards the good ship LOLLIPOPS and giving me another Reason Snape Hated James. (Dumbledore kept Snape busy while James (masqurading as Snape; can you say Polyjuice Potion?) wooed Lily away from Snape) >>3 - :( Harry dies at the end. Oh, heck, I don't like any of these >>theories I'm coming up with. Maybe I should just stop now. Although ??!! >>in legend it is always said that Arthur is supposed to rise again -- tying >>into the resurrection theme throughout the books.<< Ah, the legend of the sleeping king. I could see a greviously injured, about to die, Harry put into a magical cryogenic stasis and shipped off to some hidden magical island (Avalon) unltil he was needed again, I guess. But then, I have no problem believing that King Arthur can be awoken early by a NYC cop in the company of mythical beasts from the tenth century. >>4 - Someone (lady of the lake-esqe) will give Harry a special weapon >>(wand?) to help him fight V. after his special wand is broken/lost. Maybe >>the next time V and Harry have a go at it, V figures out a way to destroy >>Harry's wand, everyone is in complete despair because the only effective >>weapon against V's Avada Kedavra is broken -- and then Harry gets a >>special gift.<< This, I can't really see. Half the time, Arthur gets Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake, the other half, he pulls it from a stone. Plus I have problems seeing Harry getting a new wand. >>5 - Someone will trick Harry into trusting them, with adverse consequences >>(al la Morgan le Fay).<< I can kinda see this... >>6 - Harry may sink to the level of the Dark Side in his attempt to fight >>them. (akin to when Arthur orders all male babies killed in an attempt to >>destroy his and Morgan's child). This will come back to haunt him. << >From my take of Arthurian legend, Arthur was tricked into doing it by Merlin (who wasn't really Merlin at the time) for fear that his basterd son would cause problems for him (which ended up coming true as it was his son by his half sister who killed him). Which leads me to question why this prediction/theory is seperate from the last one as Arthur would not have tried to kill the children had it not been the advice from his most trusted of advisors: Merlin (or at least someone who looked and sounded like Merlin) I have a few personal theories/predictions myself. 1) True to what happened with Merlin (and Moody), Dubmledore will walk into a trap and be captured. A Polyjuice Potion using his hair will be made and given to someone in order to lead Harry astray in hopes that Harry will be convinced to do something *really* stupid. 2) Harry and Ron will becoming embroiled in a love triangle which will result in Ron getting the girl, and then running off to somewhere where Harry will never find them; such as Ohio. 3) Harry will be nearly killed by someone close to him (either blood relation or friend who becomes unofficial family) who at the time has learned (under the wing of someone who *really* hates him) to hate/resent him. He will also kill that person. The fatal wounds will be exchanged at the exact same moment. (Think A shooting B as B's stabbing A with a sword cane/katana hidden as a sword. And yes I'm a fan of Cowboy Bebop.) 4) Harry will spend some time searching for a magical object, that while it does not exist, has the promise of winning the war for the side of Good. This would not be the philosopher's stone, although it would be the Potterverse equivallent of the holy grail. King Arthur never found the grail, although he spent years looking for it. It took Harry only a couple of months to find the Philospher's stone, and most of that time, he wasn't really looking for it. 5) I can't really think of a number 5 without going into Gargoyles (and Gargoyles Pendragon )cannon which, seeing as this is a Harry Potter list, you wouldn't care/know about. @---<-- Chyna Rose From kendra_grant at fantasysales.net Mon Mar 25 12:37:18 2002 From: kendra_grant at fantasysales.net (Kendra Grant-Bingham) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 07:37:18 -0500 Subject: Snape's oily hair In-Reply-To: <1017031591.2859.34131.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020325073651.00a65bd0@mail.fantasysales.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36948 >~~~~~"Amanda" says....... >Snape's hair is oily or greasy. It has never, to my recollection, been >identified as dirty. And I have a few less far-fetched reasons it might be >oily or greasy: >--Snape is someone who naturally has oily hair. I've known a few, including >a guy who had to shower twice a day to keep from looking like he'd run a >marathon.~~~~~ > > Yes, I have known people with excessivly oily hair also, but wouldn't it look much nicer, and much less "dirty" if Snape kept it shorter? Mayhap long hair is in vogue at Hogwarts, at least in Snape's mind, but, if my hair always looked like I coated it in oil, I would tend to keep it short! --- Kendra Grant-Bingham ~~~~~Phoenix Moonshadow Wych~~~~~ "Gryffindor House ...where Friendship and Bravery count." [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zoehooch at yahoo.com Mon Mar 25 23:27:11 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 23:27:11 -0000 Subject: Gringotts Was (Re: Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36949 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" wrote: > I posted before a question about Gringott's Bank. In Goblet of Fire > (Ch. 5 & 10) Mrs. Weasley offers to pick up Harry's school supplies > while he is at the world cup and when he returns he finds she not > only shopped, but got him gold out of his vault. How? He never gave > her permission(although he would have given it willingly). Just because there isn't an explicit scene in the book where Harry gives Mrs. Weasley the key or some kind of formal permission to enter his vault, doesn't neccessarily mean that such an occurance didn't happen. To have such a scene doesn't really advance the plot. I suspect that JKR had to make extensive cuts to GoF just to get it to its present length. Zoe Hooch From Kwhateverr2001 at cs.com Mon Mar 25 15:43:02 2002 From: Kwhateverr2001 at cs.com (Kwhateverr2001 at cs.com) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 10:43:02 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Still Life with Memory Charm, Magic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36950 In a message dated 3/24/02 2:34:34 PM Mountain Standard Time, finwitch at yahoo.com writes: > Also.. *why* is Snape's hair so dirty? Does it have something to do > with the un-paid life-debt? Would he melt like Evil Witch of the East > (or was it West) in the Wizard of Oz if he was exposed to *pure* > water? Life-debt doesn't seem to prevent killing (if we presume that > bond holds between Father&Son Crouch). > My two cents: I think Snape's greasy hair is nothing more than a device used by JKR to portray Snape as a villian. Its a stereotypical but effective way to show that he's a negative character. Then after she has portrayed him as such and the readers are alerted to the possible presence of a bad guy, she can have fun with the character and have him be noble occassionaly. I think the hair and hooked nose are nothing but ways to build Snape up as a bad guy, then when he turns out to be good he shows that we can't judge by looks alone. (A good standby lesson for a children's book. Sorry!) Lysa From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Mar 25 16:10:15 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:10:15 -0000 Subject: Will Winky go to the Weasleys? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36951 I think it'd be very out-of character. We've seen how devoted Winky was to the Crouches. Do you think she'd leave caring for Crouch Jr. even after that... ummmm... fiasco? I personally think that Winky is the most tragic character in HP. Eileen From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sun Mar 24 21:30:20 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 21:30:20 -0000 Subject: Just Desserts (WAS Hagrid not brave? (was Re: Hagrid, Keeper of the Keys)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36952 Jenny wrote (about Hagrid's bravery): > I shall say no more, as I've bemoaned how I feel about Hagrid many > times here. I'm just waiting for Cindy to jump in and join me! > Oh, dear. I think I am losing zest for the hunt. Hagrid might be incompetent, but at least he is not Evil. See, I've been reading all of these posts about how even lowly Pettigrew is to be pittied and spared. How we were to pity Black even when we thought he was a ruthless killer. How even evil Crouch Jr. is deserving of sympathy when he was relieved of his soul. In the face of all that, how am I supposed to pile on against Hagrid? How, I ask, how? To tell you the truth, I'm getting a little worried that I just might . . . be going Soft. Consider this: Elkins (on just desserts for Pettigrew in the Shrieking Shack): >It doesn't right any wrongs; it doesn't cause anyone to > behave any better; it doesn't ensure anyone's safety; it brings no > one any closer to redemption or virtue or even simple happiness. It > doesn't make the world a better place in any way, shape or form. > There's just nothing there *to* make me feel content. Yes, there are plenty of people in the world who would find pleasure in the execution of someone like Pettigrew. They are often found opening bottles of champagne outside prisons when someone is executed. I don't count myself among them, you'll be pleased to know. But there is another emotion and motivation in the Shack that I can identify with: finality. Lupin and Black were going to execute Pettigrew. Pettigrew was weeping and cringing and all, making it difficult for them, perhaps. There was a lot of talk about avenging James and Lily, about what Peter should have done rather than betray his friends. The real justification for their finishing Peter, however, is to end this thing. Peter has shown no remorse, so there is no basis to believe that he will not return to the dark side at the first opportunity. Peter was as Evil To The Core in the Shack as he ever was. Nothing had changed. Peter's demise would not be something to celebrate. But it surely would have served a purpose, though. It would have prevented Frank Bryce's death, Cedric's death, Bertha's death and Crouch Sr. death. It would have prevented Voldemort's rise. It would have prevented all of the deaths we will be treated to in the next three books. So there is something to be said for finality, perhaps. Elkins again: > Well, how to say this without it coming across as either droolingly > self-evident or insufferably self-righteous? > > I hate murder. . . . And to my mind, once > someone is lying on his back staring at you while you're holding a > weapon on him, it's no longer self-defense if you kill him. Boy, this is a tough argument to make. Somehow, I find myself taking up the "Pro-Murder" banner. How did I get backed into this particular corner? :-) Seriously, though, I think I wasn't too terribly concerned when Harry had his wand on Black. I just didn't think he could have gone through with it. It just didn't register with me. JKR wrote it that way by telling us all of Harry's doubts and hesitation. I also had the conventions of fiction working for me there, too. I mean, really. The Good Guys *never* just blast the Bad Guy. The Bad Guy has to do something stupid like lunge at the Good Guy before he can pull the trigger. I wasn't too worried. Now Black and Lupin definitely meant business with Pettigrew. And why was that OK? Well, we know that wizarding justice stinks. Pettigrew is likely to be able to talk his way out of Azkaban and join the Dark Lord. That's assuming that Black and Lupin can even get Peter taken into custody at all (which they failed to do). So to me, the fact that he showed no true remorse (no, self-preservation isn't the same thing) means that Pettigrew was still a threat. Not an immediate threat, that is, a threat to harm the trio or Black or Lupin right then. He was a longer-term threat to the wizarding world in general. Under the circumstances, I was quite willing to let Lupin and Black off the hook in the Shack. So maybe I haven't gone Soft after all. Cindy (Tough, yet Soft) From trog at wincom.net Sun Mar 24 20:55:26 2002 From: trog at wincom.net (talondg) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 20:55:26 -0000 Subject: Do people like SYCOPHANTS? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36953 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > Dicentra wrote: > I hate murder. I really do: I just *hate* it. I'm not crazy about > killing at all, to tell you the truth, but murder is something that > I simply and purely and absolutely detest. And to my mind, once > someone is lying on his back staring at you while you're holding a > weapon on him, it's no longer self-defense if you kill him. It's > murder. Hrm. Well. That's not totally without precident, after all. There's a long Western tradition of the "honourable surrender" where the enemy you have under your control is now under your protection - Geneva Convention and all that. But a convention is something that *both* sides have agreed to honour, and that implies that both sides have honour to bring to the table. In order to provide mercy, the recipient of the mercy must go along with the deal. But as sad as it is, there are people who are totally without the slightest shred of honour. People who will take advantage of *any* lapse in concentration, of *any* moment of weakness; people who will seek to do you harm the instant they feel they can get away with it. These people have relinquished any claim to humanity they might have once had. They have desecended to the level of a dangererous animal - like a scorpion. When you have such a one on his back with a weapon trained on him, that's not a person any more. That's a continued threat that will do you danger unless you end it, right here and now. Your only moral obligation is to do it clean, and not prolong the suffering. Consider this: the direct result of Harry's choice to spare Wormtail was the death of the Ripple house caretaker, Bertha Jorkins, Crouch Sr, and Cedric Diggory - at least, so far. Is there any doubt that there will be more deaths? Killing Wormtail in the shack would not have been murder. It would have been self-defense and a healthy dose of justice. DG From kerelsen at quik.com Mon Mar 25 01:54:33 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 20:54:33 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry as Arthur? WAS: Harry the Saviour? References: <005e01c1d382$2b014fc0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: <009a01c1d3a0$03b97b40$4f21b0d8@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 36954 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laura Huntley" To: Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 5:20 PM Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Harry as Arthur? WAS: Harry the Saviour? > While we're discussing parallels between HP and Christ, I'd like to point out some similarities between the series and Arthurian *legend* < > Obvious connections: > SNIP > > 8 - The sorcerer's stone -- the holy grail -- you know what I'm getting at. For those persons who think of the Holy Grail as Malory's cup from the Last Supper, an even closer connection is found when you find out that Wolfram Von Eschenbach's Gral in PARZIVAL isn't a cup at all, but a magical stone that grants eternal life and is a miraculous provider of plenty (the instantly appearing feasts at Hogwarts ties into this aspect). The Gral is a Philosopher's Stone in all but name. There are a lot of other PARZIVAL connecctions as well. To me, Harry is not Arthur; Harry is Parzival. My reasoning: 1. Parzival is reared outside of his birthright, kept willfully in ignorance of it by his mother _in_order_to_protect_him_from_his_father's_enemies._ Dumbledore's reasons for placing him with the Dursley's probably had as much to do with protecting him from any remaining DEs who might be around and wanting to get revenge as it did with protecting him from the effects of growing up famous. And protection could be considered Petunia's reasoning for keeping Harry in the dark as well... it was wizarding that got Lily and James killed. Keeping Harry from that would keep them all "safe" from the danger Petunia saw in it.) 2. Parzival's got incredible talent as a knight with hardly any training (more or less "this is a horse, this is a saddle, this is a lance--you stick it in the bad guy...), winning his very first battle against the best of any Knight that had ever appeared at Arthur's court at the time (It wasn't Lancelot, BTW, but the Red Knight.) Harry is very powerful even when he doesn't understand what he's doing--His initial defeat of Voldemort when Harry was a mere toddler is the obvious parallel here. Harry's subsequent magical accidents are pretty spectacular compared to what seems to be implied that other non-Muggle kids do before they're realized to be wizards and witches. 3. Parzival makes mistakes due to not asking the right questions at the right time--at the Gral Castle when he doesn't ask Anfortas about his wound and the Gral procession--condemning Anfortas to more agony and himself to a period of penitance and repentance, with ultimate redemption coming from doing the right thing finally. Harry never seems to go ask Dumbledore the right questions at the right time, and causes himself and others more grief in his quest to fulfill his destiny. But even in GOF we see he is getting better at asking the right questions of the right people, even if he hasn't reached perfection in that yet! Like Parzival, Harry learns from his mistakes. 4. In the end, Parzival heals Anfortas, wins the Gral and becomes the Gral King. He becomes ruler of a once corrupted kingdom that has now reached such perfection that it sends out Gral Knights to assist other lands and to bring peace and stability to them. Harry's ultimate quest is to defeat Voldemort, but I also see him as being the one who will remove the corruption currently found in the wizarding world. One way or another, I think Harry will be behind the downfall of Cornelius Fudge, and that the Ministry of Magic is going to end up with a thorough housecleaning, removing its corruption. I can see the renewed MoM cautiously re-establishing ties with the Muggle world in beneficial ways, once Harry's quest is complete. SNIP > What all of this might mean/some future connections? > > 1 - Ron might betray Harry (Lancelot is Arthur's most trusted lieutenant, betrays him) I have considered this possibility... I do hope it doesn't happen though! > > 2 - Maybe theory that Dumbledore somehow set up James and Lily's relationship in order to get Harry (the boy that can vanquish Voldy) actually holds some water (I'd really hate to think this). I don't have a problem with Dumbledore being a beneficient manipulator of people and events, but I agree, the idea that he set up James and Lily merely to produce a special son really disturbs me... I can't remember which of the legends suggests that Arthur's parents were merely tools of Merlin and his goals for the future, but I do recall reading at least one version with that point to it. I didn't care for it too much. And when I think of the trickery that Merlin did, changing Uther Pendragon's appearance to that of Ingraine's husband, I shudder to think of someone else being transformed to fool Lily... (Ugh... I think I just got an idea for a REALLY dark Snapefic...) > 3 - :( Harry dies at the end. Oh, heck, I don't like any of these theories I'm coming up with. Maybe I should just stop now. Although ??!! in legend it is always said that Arthur is supposed to rise again -- tying into the resurrection theme throughout the books. Or, if we go back to the Parzival story, Harry will NOT die, but will succeed in his quest and live a long life. Parzival, it is implied, will live forever at the Gral Castle, as a just ruler. Not all Arthurian legend has the protagonist die at the end. Most people are more familiar with the legends that are derived from Malory's LE MORT D'ARTHUR rather than Wolfram's or Chretien de Troyes' works, and thus end up with "the world is doomed no matter what good men do, etc." as the interpretation of Arthur and his knights. Parzival's Gral remains on Earth to bless and provide for mankind, while Malory's Grail is taken up and removed from the Earth and hope goes with it. Parzival, although having majorly screwed up by failing to the one simple thing necessary to win the Gral the first time around, was able to fix his mistake and win his quest in the end, after a period of self-growth and maturing. Malory's knights, no matter how much they repent and try to mend their errors, are condemned to never achieve the Grail, and the one that does is so bloody perfect, he really can't be considered a representative of mankind at all. Harry Potter is our representative in the great battle of good versus evil in the wizarding world. He's human. He makes mistakes, and learns from them, and tries his best to do the right thing. He isn't perfect, but, like Parzival, shows that perfection is something that is gradually attained and not something that one is born into (like Malory's Galahad). Harry is the hope of wizards and witches precisely because he is not some paragon of unearthly virtue. He can say, "Don't follow Voldemort. Don't let evil take over you. Make the right choices." and has the best chance of being followed because he shows that you don't have to be perfect to say, "I will choose not to do evil today." If Harry were more like Galahad, I know I'd hate the books. I despise the "lily-white soul" characters that are supposed to be showing us what we should be doing to be successful... because I'm not like that. I have my flaws and I try to do my best... Harry Potter is an example of a flawed person who DOES do his best, and wins out despite his flaws, overcoming them. If he can do that, so can I. SNIP > 5 - Someone will trick Harry into trusting them, with adverse consequences (al la Morgan le Fay). Well, we've seen that already, in GOF... The fake Moody... Harry trusted him, and look what happened! SNIP > 7 - Umm..I have to go eat now. LOL! I know the feeling. I think you have brought up a lot of good points. As a student of medieval literature, I look for Arthurian (and even non-Arthurian medieval) connections in the more modern stuff I read and enjoy. Harry Potter has been a joy for me because it lends itself to this sort of interpretation so well. I just hope that my exhaustion after a weekend of chasing five kids hasn't made it too incoherent! And now I had better get off of this enjoyable hobby horse of mine, and back to the Comm Theory homework I should have been doing... Bernadette "Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art. It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival." -- C.S. Lewis (1898-1963). From nyarth at morsmordre.co.uk Mon Mar 25 01:00:53 2002 From: nyarth at morsmordre.co.uk (nyarth_meow) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 01:00:53 -0000 Subject: Prof. Sprout's First Name & Salazar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36955 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "garaeta" wrote: > I'm submitting this again, after spending a lot of time with the > search button on the Lexicon (yes, of course I checked it.) the > closest thing I found to the subject was when I searched the archives > of the group and around 1800 someone asked the same question. I > could not find a follow-up tho. > > Help. > > margaraeta I think the poor dear simply doesn't have one. Though we can safely assume it's an "S" as all the other Heads of Houses (And House Founders) have nice alliterate names. Sabrina? Sally? Severa? Salazar? ^_^ Which reminds me, I was wondering where Salazar Slytherin's name originates. I know Slytherin is what a snake does, but does Salazar have any connotations, or did JKR make it up? -Nyarth From tabouli at unite.com.au Tue Mar 26 00:32:29 2002 From: tabouli at unite.com.au (Tabouli) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:32:29 +1100 Subject: Off to Adelaide, FILK: The Weasley Bunch Message-ID: <00ac01c1d460$596625a0$0a31c2cb@price> No: HPFGUIDX 36956 Just letting you all know I'm off to Adelaide this afternoon and will be away until the first of April. From painful experience, I will switch all my HPFGU lists to webview in the meantime ("You have 561 unread messages, most of which are HPFGU digests...") (Captain Tabouli slips a last few acronym-splattered badges and costumes into her suitcase and hands it to George, her cabin boy, while the crew lower her canoe into the Bay. She feels uneasy about leaving her Ship in such troubled times. Not only are enemy fleets circling at all times, rumour has it Theory Bay itself is under threat by local developers, who are threatening to drain it, reclaim the land, and turn it into a Can(n)on Museum. Nonetheless, the current voyage is unavoidable, so all she can do is hope those who navigate the Bay, both friend and foe, will defend it well in her absence). Now. I've always been a bit twitchy about the prospect of a Harry/Ginny relationship. Sure, it's what Ginny wants, and it would join Harry to the Weasleys in holy matrimony, so to speak, but... well... it's just a bit too EWWW for me. (Moreover, so far Harry has shown roughly zero interest in the concept). I was musing on why I felt this way today, and discovered that my main objection is that it's just a bit too "and they lived happily ever after"-ish for my ghoulish tastes. A bit too much like the Brady Bunch. Then I thought, hang on... there's a Filk in that! "THE WEASLEY BUNCH" (to the tune of the theme song for "The Brady Bunch") This is the story Of a boy called Harry, Who was caught between two very lovely girls, One of them had hair of fire, like her brothers, And one had bushy curls; A crush on Harry Had the girl called Ginny, She was dizzy to have him for her own, He was best friends with her older brother, But she was all alone. H/G shippers say if Ginny got her fellow, All would tru - ly come right in the crunch, Harry then would get a loving family, For through marriage he would join the Weasley Bunch! The Weasley Bunch, The Weasley Bunch, Yes, they say he will join the Weasley Bunch! *** Have a good week, and I'll be back on Monday! Tabouli. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Kwhateverr2001 at cs.com Mon Mar 25 15:47:04 2002 From: Kwhateverr2001 at cs.com (Kwhateverr2001 at cs.com) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 10:47:04 EST Subject: Harry's Protection Message-ID: <5f.24a0f0dd.29d0a078@cs.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36958 In a message dated 3/24/02 2:51:34 PM Mountain Standard Time, ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com writes: > 2. Would AK actually work on Harry now? Or does Voldemort just think > it will? No one knows really...we just have to wait and see. > My question is: Now that Harry and Voldemort are joined by blood, we know that Voldie has Harry's protection. Does this mean that the only person that can kill Voldie now is Harry? How is that bond broken if someone else tries to kill Voldie? Would Harry suffer as well? Lysa From editor at texas.net Tue Mar 26 02:03:40 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 20:03:40 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's oily hair References: <5.0.2.1.2.20020325073651.00a65bd0@mail.fantasysales.net> Message-ID: <00c701c1d46a$74177200$9d7d63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 36959 Kendra said > Yes, I have known people with excessivly oily hair also, but wouldn't it > look much nicer, and much less "dirty" if Snape kept it shorter? Mayhap > long hair is in vogue at Hogwarts, at least in Snape's mind, but, if my > hair always looked like I coated it in oil, I would tend to keep it short! Where did you get the impression that Snape gives a tinker's damn about what anyone thinks? Others' opinions of his appearance is probably just below his concern for Neville's feelings or his fear of offending Lupin. This thread is ranging far into the ridiculous. --Amandageist, not in the mood to mince words From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Mon Mar 25 05:11:06 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 05:11:06 -0000 Subject: Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36960 Gretchen said: > This small detail has been nagging at me for a few years now. Where > did the Nimbus 2000 come from? We know that McGonagall "sent" it to > Harry, but who paid for it?... > My off the wall theory on this is that Dumbledore is in contact, > somehow, with Harry's parents and they are the ones that got the > broom.... "Who paid for the Nimbus 2000?" has bothered me, too. However, I don't think your theory is right, Gretchen. Even if James and Lily are around in ghost form and Dumbledore can contact them when he wants (which I don't think is the case), Harry has inherited their Gringotts' account. I don't think the gold there would belong to them anymore. Judy From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Mon Mar 25 16:48:55 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:48:55 -0000 Subject: Harry the Saviour? (was Re: A quote, and RE: Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36961 Yesterday was Palm/Passion Sunday. Over breakfast, I was talking with my Dad about who might be redeemed in the end in HP. To my immense displeasure, he nominated Draco. :-) "But, what about Pettigrew?" Well, we decided that Pettigrew is too obviously modeled off Wormtongue to go with that sort of ending. But there is something up with him. What? And, listening to the second Gospel, something clicked. It was the line about the potter's field that caught my attention. 3 When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, 4 saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." 5 And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself. 6 But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money." 7 So they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. 8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Afterwards, I began to wonder if this is the ending for Pettigrew. After all, Judas is the prototypical traitor. I could see remorse finally getting to him, and Voldemort mocking him. And it would mesh with the comment JKR made. Eileen --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cmf_usc" wrote: > Catlady found a JKR quote: > < asked, says, "I believe in God, not magic." In fact, Rowling > initially was afraid that if people were aware of her Christian > faith, she would give away too much of what's coming in the > series. "If I talk too freely about that," she told a Canadian > reporter, "I think the intelligent reader -- whether ten[years old] > or sixty -- will be able to guess what is coming in the books.">> > > Then Catlady:< Christianity will give the plot away means I'm right in my theory > that Harry will die to destroy Voldemort.>> > > And Naama replied: > < sacrificial death? What about the resurrection? > Come to think of it, Harry already represents a miraculous victory > over death, as the only known person to survive the Avada Kedavra > curse. Possibly he will repeat this overcoming of death in some form > in the future?>> > > Now me: > There are so many symbols of resurrection/rebirth surrounding Harry! > The phoenix (immortality, resurrection), holly (rebirth), lion > (rebirth, power), gryphon (salvation)... > > And surrounding his parents--stag (resurrection, Tree of Life), > willow (Tree of Life, immortality, protection, miraculous births), > the name Lily (purity, resurrection). > > I think--we're supposed to see Harry as the chosen child. The one > who will bring rebirth. But I hope that it's sort of a split process- > -that his parents did the sacrifical death part, leaving the > rebirth/salvation to him... > > Because--I just feel so protective towards the kid! Ever since those > scenes with Lupin, and the boggart... He's had such a crappy life so > far, I hate to think his choice between "right & easy" will have to > be to choose death. > > Extra Credit questions: > 1. If Harry doesn't have to choose between life & death, what else > might his right vs easy decision be about? > 2. Would AK actually work on Harry now? Or does Voldemort just think > it will? > > Caroline From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Mar 26 08:10:32 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 08:10:32 -0000 Subject: Death and Justice (Was: Re: Do people like SYCOPHANTS?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36962 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "talondg" wrote: > Hrm. Well. > > That's not totally without precident, after all. There's a long > Western tradition of the "honourable surrender" where the enemy you > have under your control is now under your protection - Geneva > Convention and all that. > > But a convention is something that *both* sides have agreed to > honour, and that implies that both sides have honour to bring to the > table. In order to provide mercy, the recipient of the mercy must go > along with the deal. > > Consider this: the direct result of Harry's choice to spare Wormtail > was the death of the Ripple house caretaker, Bertha Jorkins, Crouch > Sr, and Cedric Diggory - at least, so far. Is there any doubt that > there will be more deaths? " 'He deserves death'. 'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.' " -- J. R. R. Tolkien - The Lord of the Rings (LotR) That, for those here that haven't read LotR, is an exchange between Gandalf and Frodo about the destiny of Smeagol/Gollum. The similarities and parallelisms between them and D'dore, Harry and Wormtail are inmediatly obvious (I hope) to anyone who's read both books, but it's not the point of this post. On-topic, I believe that quote is the greatest piece of thinking of LotR, and I've often used it as a base against death sentence. The fact is, you cannot base any argument about Wormtail's death on "If they had killed him, many other people wouldn't have died", since they couldn't have known (the plan was to imprison him, not let him go free). That sort of retropective logic is always very useful a posteriori, but musn't be used as justification ("If I had known..." is NEVER a good start for an explanation). > But as sad as it is, there are people who are totally without the > slightest shred of honour. People who will take advantage of *any* > lapse in concentration, of *any* moment of weakness; people who will > seek to do you harm the instant they feel they can get away with it. > > These people have relinquished any claim to humanity they might have > once had. They have desecended to the level of a dangererous animal - > like a scorpion. > > When you have such a one on his back with a weapon trained on him, > that's not a person any more. That's a continued threat that will do > you danger unless you end it, right here and now. > > Your only moral obligation is to do it clean, and not prolong the > suffering. Even if the other person involved is a dangerous animal, that doesn't mean he deserved death as punishment. Death is too _ultimate_ for punishment. Let's follow your line of thought for a moment. Someone who "desecend[s] to the level of a dangererous animal" is to be killed quickly. Now, Lupin descended to the level of a dangerous animal once a month for most of his life, and we all agree know that it's lucky that no-one actually followed that moral code while he was little, or Harry wouldn't had have a chance against dementors, but this is a posteriori reasoning again. The difference, is that by deciding NOT to kill the dangerous lunatic werewolf, and giving him a chance, lifes were saved. Of course, it could've been otherwise, but they couldn't know, and took the risk of the most difficult path anyway (taking a human life is all too easy). > Killing Wormtail in the shack would not have been murder. It would > have been self-defense and a healthy dose of justice. > > DG Killing Wormtail in the shack was NOT self-defence. Wormtail was no danger to anyone involved. There were four proficient wizards and four wands in that room, and only one very tired, sick and debilitated Wormtail who's only desire was to go on living. He was not a menace to anyone at that time. None of the people involved were in any danger of death or pain by cause of Wormtail, and killing him would have been murder, pure and simple. Even Sirius knows it ("I want to commit the crime I was convicted for") (liberal translation). Now, for the tricly part. Would it have been justice? I don't see death as a form of justice, but as the end of life. Thus, once you're dead, you're dead and justice (and anything else) has no meaning to you. So, no, killing Wormtail wouldn't have been justice. Think about other examples: Would killing Snape, Karkarov, Lupin, Sirius et co., people who at one time or another been guilty of dangerous or malevolant acts, been "justice"? No, it would just be a fast and easy solution to a sticky problem. Justice is difficult to describe, but it's not just "an eye for an eye" (hope I don't offend jews out there; I'm not sure if you still follow that rule). D'dore believes in giving people second chances, and so do I. Careful observation of the convicted for a few years, maybe, in a restricted environment were he can do no harm, and then, little by little, reinsert into society (if it's safe). If not, he must be kept under vigilance until he dies, but still allowed to live HIS life as far as he doesn't cause pain to others. I live in a country ravaged by terrorism. Every month people are attacked or killed by bombs (hidden in cars, bicycles, post-sacks, letters, you name it). This state of affairs has been going on for almost a century, and in this time, terrorist have been caught and trialed. Most of them have gone to prison. None have been killed by their crimes and, even though I have seen those people killed, I do not desire their deaths: One side of killers is too much, lets not transform OUR side into terrorists as well. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From Whirdy at aol.com Tue Mar 26 08:55:46 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 03:55:46 EST Subject: Death and Justice (Was: Re: Do people like SYCOPHANTS?) Message-ID: <5b.25284ab0.29d19192@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36963 In a message dated 3/26/02 3:11:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, greywolf1 at jazzfree.com writes: > Even Sirius knows it ("I want to commit the crime I was convicted for") IIRC Black was sent directly to A with no trial, so no conviction. And they were after him for betrayal of the Potters, were they not, suspecting him of being LV's spy. whirdy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ganvira at earthlink.net Tue Mar 26 08:40:37 2002 From: ganvira at earthlink.net (Terry van Ettinger) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 00:40:37 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Gringotts Was (Re: Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? ) References: Message-ID: <008b01c1d4a1$e7364040$b995cd18@charterpipeline.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36964 I never really thought about that much myself. I figure it may very well be one of those things I call "housekeeping details", details where our not knowing them doesn't affect our understanding of the important points. It probably wouldn't have affected the final outcome of the book no matter what the answer to that question was. Terry From: "zoehooch" > Just because there isn't an explicit scene in the book where Harry > gives Mrs. Weasley the key or some kind of formal permission to enter > his vault, doesn't neccessarily mean that such an occurance didn't > happen. > > To have such a scene doesn't really advance the plot. I suspect that > JKR had to make extensive cuts to GoF just to get it to its present > length. From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Mar 26 08:44:10 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 08:44:10 -0000 Subject: Gringotts Was (Re: Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36965 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "zoehooch" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" wrote: > > I posted before a question about Gringott's Bank. In Goblet of Fire > > (Ch. 5 & 10) Mrs. Weasley offers to pick up Harry's school supplies > > while he is at the world cup and when he returns he finds she not > > only shopped, but got him gold out of his vault. How? He never gave > > her permission(although he would have given it willingly). > > Just because there isn't an explicit scene in the book where Harry > gives Mrs. Weasley the key or some kind of formal permission to enter > his vault, doesn't neccessarily mean that such an occurance didn't > happen. > > To have such a scene doesn't really advance the plot. I suspect that > JKR had to make extensive cuts to GoF just to get it to its present > length. Well said. It's never mentioned that Harry (or anyone) actually used a toilet for it's intended purpose (VERY rare occasion in fantasy books, BTW, having a character do that) but yet it's obvious they do. We do get to see them eat every now and then, visit few classes, but we do not get to watch every single moment they do. It'd get *boring* that way. Of course some events are cut off! From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Mar 26 09:13:48 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:13:48 -0000 Subject: Prof. Sprout's First Name & Salazar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36966 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nyarth_meow" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "garaeta" wrote: > > I think the poor dear simply doesn't have one. Though we can safely > assume it's an "S" as all the other Heads of Houses (And House > Founders) have nice alliterate names. Sabrina? Sally? Severa? > Salazar? ^_^ Not all- Minerva McGonagall, remember? What about Florence Sprout? Herbology professor with both names having to do with plants sounds all nice to me. > Which reminds me, I was wondering where Salazar Slytherin's name > originates. I know Slytherin is what a snake does, but does Salazar > have any connotations, or did JKR make it up? Thousand and One Nights is what it brings to my mind... but, being Finnish, that it begins with 'sala' - well, it simply would refer to something *secret* or hidden in my language. zar has no meaning, but it can be considered as modification for exotic. Don't know if JKR knows anything of my language, though, but she may have been looking at dictionaries with the word *secret*. (Chamber of *Secrets* was made by him, after all) Don't know, maybe zar means room or space in some language? From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Mar 26 09:28:16 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 04:28:16 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: My favorite bit of foreshadowing Message-ID: <181.5b9be4d.29d19930@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36967 I knew I'd come across one the other day, but I couldn't remember what it was. Sometimes I make Neville look look Mr Memory! In Privet Drive, Dumbledore explains that he wouldn't do anything about Harry's scar, even if he could, as scars have a habit of coming in useful. He immediately trivialises the remark by talking about the one above his (?) left knee which is a perfect map of the London Underground. These, I think *may* be forshadowings. As I've said before, Dumbledore's 'I would trust Hagrid with my life' sends a little bit of a shiver down my spine. Then Snape brings up the subject of wolfsbane in the first potions lesson. What's the betting that the sleep of living death turns up at some point, or the potion that stoppers death? Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Mar 26 10:27:47 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 05:27:47 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Still Life with Memory Charm Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36968 Pippin: >So Snape sets up Frank Longbottom planning to double cross >the Lestranges, rescue Frank and catch the Lestranges in the >act. But the Lestranges, acting on information from their secret >ally, young Barty, start to suspect Snape and mislead him about >the timetable of the planned attack. Snape arrives on the scene >too late. The Longbottoms Sr are a gibbering mess, and poor >Neville appears to remember nothing about the attack, but does >keep a traumatized repressed (not charmed) memory of Snape's >wrathful arrival. I've already quoted this theory of Pippin's, saying that I couldn't cope with yet another of Snape's attempts at redeeming himself going awry. Yet, methinks the theory has merit. Working from my theory that Snape's mounting animosity against Harry relates to the increasing number of times he has thwarted Snape's efforts to perform some redemptive act of heroism, I wonder if his animosity towards Neville also has a basis in Neville's somehow being an unwitting agent in his parent's downfall. I haven't worked out how, but I'm sure someone can work out a suitable scenario. And then, as Pippin says, Snape arrives, all vengeful and puts the fear of God into young Neville. Snape can't have seen what actually happened, as then he could have been a witness. But it would associate Snape with the occasion in Neville's mind. If Neville's presence had somehow contributed to the outcome, then it would in Snape's way of thinking, not just associate Neville with a failure but give him reason to hate Neville. And of course, not only can he not cope with incompetance generally (as he can't cope with incompetance in himself), but he feels in a circular sort of way implicit in the event from which Neville's incompetance stems, which makes him even less tolerant of it. An alternative, but less satisfyng scenario is simply that he resents the survival of this apology for a Longbottom after his failure to save his parents. Eloise, hoping that someone will come up with some suitable convoluted theory. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk Tue Mar 26 11:20:05 2002 From: A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk (edisbevan) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:20:05 -0000 Subject: Prof. Sprout's First Name & Salazar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36969 "nyarth_meow" wrote: > Which reminds me, I was wondering where Salazar Slytherin's name > originates. I know Slytherin is what a snake does, but does > Salazar have any connotations, or did JKR make it up? > -Nyarth Showing my age maybe but I thought 'Salazar' was a reference to Antonio Salazar, Fascist dictator of Portugal from 1926 to (I think) about 1970. Similar resonances to calling someone 'Adolph'... JKR was after all married briefly to a Portuguese man and lived in Portugal for a bit so the name would have been familiar furniture in her background knowledge. Edis From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Mar 26 12:04:22 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:04:22 -0000 Subject: Death and Justice In-Reply-To: <5b.25284ab0.29d19192@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36970 I wrote: > Even Sirius knows it ("I want to commit the crime I was convicted > for")_(liberal translation)_ Whirdy answered: > IIRC Black was sent directly to A with no trial, so no conviction. > And they were after him for betrayal of the Potters, were they not, > suspecting him of being LV's spy. > > whirdy That's actually a quote on what Sirius says in the shack, when he's pointing Peter with a wand and is talking with Lupin. I don't know the exact words he says in the original book because I haven't read it: I've only read it in my language. Maybe JKR doesn't use "convicted" but "imprisoned" (Would s.o. please look up the quote for me?), but that's beside the point. The point is that Sirius knows that what he's doing is not justice, is revenge, and he doesn't pretend otherwise. I'll leave minute gramatical discussions on the theme of "de-translating Harry Potter back into English" to those with too much spare time on their hands. Anyway, I'm pretty vexed with whirdy's answer, because it's got nothing to do with my post, is a one-liner and is wrong: Sirius goes without trial to Azkaban for killing Peter Pettigrew and a score of muggles who were in the scene of crime. The "proof" was so convincing that he was sent directly to Azkaban without trial. The fact that it looked like he had betrayed the Potters was probably taken into account, but I doubt it was publicly known (it's a _secret_ keeper, after all), except to a few people like D'dore. I'm pretty sure, however, that the main reason was the muggle-Sirius-Peter situation (maybe s.o. can look up canon on that, too. Must be at the beggining of PoA). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf PD: This post is more a flame than anything else. I know it, and I'm sorry, and I'm taking a rest off right now to calm down. From heidit at netbox.com Tue Mar 26 13:02:45 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:02:45 -0000 Subject: The Creation of the Term "Put Outer" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36971 > Cindy writes: > >And why does JKR, a > master > > of inventing clever names like veritaserum and pensieve, resort to > a > > clunky name like Put-Outer? > > It is a clunky name - sort of the thing that when people name things in that manner in fanfiction, I generally am less interested in the story because it's not JKR-ian in its creativity with creating and naming magics. But there may be an explanation! Perhaps they are called that because it came from the colonies back in the 1500's, when potatoes were first introduced in europe and the original models looked the same as a tuber. Okay, probably not - but it is a familiar-sounding and -looking word, and maybe that's why JKR chose it -= when reading it aloud it sounds somewhat like Potato - and when reading it to one's self from the page, it's not as odd as seeing a Latinesque term in the begining of the book. I do think it has something to do with not wanting to introduce wands, but also as much to do with not wanting to introduce the language of spells and charms just yet - let's keep a little mystery about what is going on here. Obviously, if you'd read hte back of the book or any of the PR about it, you'd know Harry was a wizard, that there's a school called Hogwarts, etc. But if you didn't know that, then there's a clear indication that Magic Is Happening, but precisely the form or format - you still don't know. Heidi (who, if she came up with acronyms (and as Tabouli is away is willing to give this a try) would call this Questions Undermine Any Yokel's Linguistic Explanation (QUAYLE)) follow me to FictionAlley.org - fanfic of all shapes, sizes and SHIPs http://www.fictionalley.org From aiz24 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 26 13:06:53 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:06:53 -0000 Subject: The Meaning of the Term "Put Outer" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36972 Cindy writes: > > >And why does JKR, a > > master > > > of inventing clever names like veritaserum and pensieve, resort > to > > a > > > clunky name like Put-Outer? I have always thought of "Put-Outer" as not the literal wizarding world term for Dumbledore's device, but just the ww-ignorant narrator's uncreative but descriptive term for what we're seeing. It's like this: say I'm watching a carpenter at work and describing what he's doing, but I don't know any of the terms for a carpenter's tools. He takes out a level and I explain, "He took out a little device that looked like some kind of baby's toy, with little glass tubes filled with water and air" (this is akin to the PS/SS narrator saying "It seemed to be a silver cigarette lighter"). I go on to say what it was for: that it showed him when the board was perfectly straight, etc. Then in the next sentence I might well say, "He put away the Make-Straighter." It's not intended to be a true name; it's just shorthand. Therefore JKR should not receive demerits for her lack of creativity. Dumbledore probably has a very clever name for this little device, and we just aren't privy to it. What do you think, sirs? Amy Z -------------------------------------------- "Winky is having trouble adjusting, Harry Potter," squeaked Dobby confidentially. -HP and the Goblet of Fire -------------------------------------------- From ffionmiles at hotmail.com Tue Mar 26 14:30:16 2002 From: ffionmiles at hotmail.com (ffimiles) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 14:30:16 -0000 Subject: Gringotts Was (Re: Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36973 About the Nimbus 2000 - I don't know - it wouldn't be very polite to take money out of Harry's account without asking him, even to make a purchase like a brilliant broomstick - I really think McGonagall might have shown some unofficial favouratism towards Harry - she'd never show it, but she was extremely shocked and happy to see he was as good a flyer as his father, and having affection for Lily and James, and being present when Harry had to be abandoned with the Dursleys, she might have thought that she'd just give him this gift to make up for all that - and of course, she was very happy that Gryffindor had found a decent seaker! Ffi From naama_gat at hotmail.com Tue Mar 26 15:08:21 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:08:21 -0000 Subject: Will Winky go to the Weasleys? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36974 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > I think it'd be very out-of character. We've seen how devoted Winky > was to the Crouches. Do you think she'd leave caring for Crouch Jr. > even after that... ummmm... fiasco? > > I personally think that Winky is the most tragic character in HP. > I agree. Still... There's wonderful comic potential in that scenario, don't you think? I can just imagine it - Winky sitting in the Weasley kitchen, in her usual weepy state, and Molly fussing around her, trying to comfort her while doing all the work herself. Eventually, though, I believe that Winky would transfer her loyalty to the Weasleys. She'll start noticing how much they need looking after, how hard Molly is working, how tired Arthur looks, what a mess the house is at times. Once she starts to feel needed, she'll be hooked, I'm sure. (Maybe that's one of the reasons she didn't settle down in Hogwarts - she needs to feel that she is the mainstay of the family, and in Hogwarts she's just one of many house elves. She misses Crouch, but mainly, I think, she misses being important to somebody, to some household). Naama From zoehooch at yahoo.com Tue Mar 26 15:54:09 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:54:09 -0000 Subject: Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36975 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > "Who paid for the Nimbus 2000?" has bothered me, too. Perhaps it came from the Gryffindor petty cash fund? Zoe Hooch From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Mar 26 16:52:13 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:52:13 -0000 Subject: The Meaning of the Term "Put Outer" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36976 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lupinesque" wrote: > Cindy writes: > > > > >And why does JKR, a > > > master > > > > of inventing clever names like veritaserum and pensieve, resort > > to > > > a > > > > clunky name like Put-Outer? > > I have always thought of "Put-Outer" as not the literal wizarding > world term for Dumbledore's device, but just the ww-ignorant > narrator's uncreative but descriptive term for what we're seeing. I thought it was a clever name for one of those ww devices that does the reverse of what its muggleworld counterpart does. There's the Put-Outer, which looks and is operated like a Lighter but does the opposite, and Hermione's Revealer in CoS which looks like and operates like an eraser. Pippin From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Mar 26 10:00:18 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 10:00:18 -0000 Subject: Death and Justice (Was: Re: Do people like SYCOPHANTS?) In-Reply-To: <5b.25284ab0.29d19192@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36977 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Whirdy at a... wrote: > In a message dated 3/26/02 3:11:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, > greywolf1 at j... writes: > > > > Even Sirius knows it ("I want to commit the crime I was convicted for") > > IIRC Black was sent directly to A with no trial, so no conviction. And they > were after him for betrayal of the Potters, were they not, suspecting him of > being LV's spy. Right - no trial. Even more reason for Harry&friends to help him, even if it breaks several rules. The matter about Sirius Black/Remus Lupin killing Pettigrew... I would have wanted to stop them -- to say: "Are you grazy? How are you EVER going to clear Sirius' name if you actually DO murder Pettigrew?" They need to imprison him, not kill him. Too bad the rat managed to escape! Oh well, maybe we will get Sirius free - eventually. Finwitch From trog at wincom.net Tue Mar 26 15:32:28 2002 From: trog at wincom.net (talondg) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:32:28 -0000 Subject: Death and Justice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36978 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "talondg" wrote: > > Consider this: the direct result of Harry's choice to spare > > Wormtail was the death of the Ripple house caretaker, Bertha > > Jorkins, Crouch Sr, and Cedric Diggory - at least, so far. > " 'He deserves death'. > 'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And > some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be > too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise > cannot see all ends.' " > -- J. R. R. Tolkien - The Lord of the Rings (LotR) > > That, for those here that haven't read LotR, is an exchange between > Gandalf and Frodo about the destiny of Smeagol/Gollum. The > similarities and parallelisms between them and D'dore, Harry and > Wormtail are inmediatly obvious (I hope) to anyone who's read both > books, Ah, but there are a couple of very important differences too. Smeagol/Gollum is not intrinsicly evil, in that he does not _choose_ to be evil for evil's sake. He has been corrupted by a magical device whose purpose is to corrupt for its own ends. In Harry-Potterspeak, he is under the influence of a particularly subtle and insidious Imperious Curse, and even then, when faced with Frodo's kindness he manages to resist it, for a while at least. He's not really himself when the Ring is doing its thing. > On-topic, I believe that quote is the greatest piece of thinking of > LotR, and I've often used it as a base against death sentence. Well, do not forget that Smeagol/Gollum is a literary construct who has a place to play in the moving-forward of the plot of the book. When Gandalf speaks, he speaks not with the voice of a wise man with insight into the moral function of the universe, but rather, with the voice of the authour who knows that Gollum has a further role in the plot. Do not forget that Gollum tried to murder Frodo and Sam (by proxy, but it was entirely premeditated) and if it were the "real world", there would have been an excellent chance that he would have succeeded. And with the Ring in Mordor, I do not think Gollum would have been able to resist having the Ring stripped from him, and restored to Sauron, with the subsequent destruction and enslavement of Middle-Earth. Compare to Wormtail, who is as active an evil-doer as any in fiction. He's just as bad as Voldy - and perhaps even worse. Consider this: we know that the secret-keeper spell is particulaly powerful. We are told that, even if you know where the charges of a secret-keeper are hidden, you cannot see them or influence them unless the spell is compromised. So if Sirius *had* been the secret-keeper, and Wormtail had known where the Potters were being hidden, the information about their whereabouts is useless. He can scamper off to Voldy and rat out the Potters to his heart's content, and nothing can ever become of it. (Although, I cannot help but wonder what happens if the secret-keeper DIES - does the spell fail then? Maybe he would have brought Voldy to Sirius) So for Voldy to be able to find and kill the Potters, that means that Wormtail-as-secret-keeper must do more than tell Voldy where they are - he must participate in bringing down the spell. He would have known this up front. He would have had an opportunity to refuse to become the secret-keeper, and thus spare his friends. Instead, he took on the responsibility with the FULL KNOWLEDGE that he was going to betray them all to Voldy. We are also told that Voldy intends to kill Harry and his father. Lilly Potter is not on the target list - why? It's not like Voldy has any problem killing off innocents. I cannot help but think that she was promised to Wormtail, as reward.... > The fact is, you cannot base any argument about Wormtail's death on > "If they had killed him, many other people wouldn't have died", > since they couldn't have known (the plan was to imprison him, not > let him go free). They DID know. They had steeled themselves to the task at hand (taking any life, even one as deserving of death as Wormtail, is never a casual decision) and were about to do the deed when Harry stepped in. And even then, they did so only with the knowledge that there were Dementors near at hand into whose custody Wormtail would be released immediately, and EVEN THEN he was warned that he would be immediately killed if he tried to escape. Sirius and Lupin are treating him as if he were the most dangerous creature in the universe, and are entirely correct to do so. Past behaviour is on their side. Harry's big mistake is to equate the putting-down of Wormtail with "murder". > Even if the other person involved is a dangerous animal, that > doesn't mean he deserved death as punishment. Death is too > _ultimate_ for punishment. Death isn't punishment. Death is the removal of a danger that cannot be removed any other way. Can you rehabilitate a scorpion? > Let's follow your line of thought for a moment. Someone who > "desecend[s] to the level of a dangererous animal" is to be killed > quickly. Now, Lupin descended to the level of a dangerous animal > once a month for most of his life, [...] > The difference, is that by deciding NOT to kill the dangerous > lunatic werewolf, and giving him a chance, lifes were saved. The major difference here is that Lupin does not choose to be a werewolf, and, properly potioned, is not out of control when in werewolf state. But _even then_ having him around is still a very real risk. Consider the Prank. What if Snape had not been prevented from going into the Shack? So Snape suddenly finds himself mano-a-lupus with a murderous, out-of-control werewolf, in serious mortal danger. Ahh, but young Master Snape has been trained by his Lucius-like father in certain of the Dark Arts, and he manages to squeeze off a quick AK before he can be mauled and consumed. Justifiable? Damn straight. Regrettable? Just as much. Snape isn't the only one in Harry's father's lifedebt. > D'dore believes in giving people second chances, and so do I. Dumbledore seems to have excellent judgement in who he gives second chances. He seems to be able to recognise injustice (Hagrid) and potential for redemption (Snape) But I wouldn't be so quick to assume that his habit of giving second chances is extended to _everybody_, but rather, I suspect it is only given to people who deserve it. I don't believe for a second that Dumbledore would have pardoned Wormtail. > I live in a country ravaged by terrorism. Every month people are > attacked or killed by bombs (hidden in cars, bicycles, post-sacks, > letters, you name it). This state of affairs has been going on for > almost a century, and in this time, terrorist have been caught and > trialed. Most of them have gone to prison. None have been killed by > their crimes and, even though I have seen those people killed, I do > not desire their deaths: One side of killers is too much, lets not > transform OUR side into terrorists as well. I'm running on too long here, so I cannot really give this the attention I feel it deserves. I spent 10 years under arms. The controlled application of violence was my profession, and something I studied very intently. There exist people who cannot be rehabilitated. There exist situations where you cannot take the time to try and heal the underlying problems. The exists situtations where you must *act*, and act quickly, in order to defend yourself and/or your society. It is never something done lightly or casually, and it is never done without the greatest regret, but sometimes, it MUST be done. Doing it is often harder than not. Which country are you in? DG From ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 26 17:11:48 2002 From: ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com (Melanie Brackney) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:11:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: No subject Message-ID: <20020326171148.78862.qmail@web10908.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36979 I Perhaps it came from the Gryffindor petty cash fund? Zoe Hooch I personally think that is a very good explanation for where the money may have came from. I mean I am sure Hogwarts has some extra money stashed a way for "important" things. Thus, they most likely took it our of the stash to give to harry because he showed great potential as a seeker. Melanie --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aiz24 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 26 17:35:17 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:35:17 -0000 Subject: The Meaning of the Term "Put Outer" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36980 Pippin wrote: > I thought it was a clever name for one of those ww devices that > does the reverse of what its muggleworld counterpart does. > There's the Put-Outer, which looks and is operated like a Lighter > but does the opposite, and Hermione's Revealer in CoS which > looks like and operates like an eraser. I agree, but Put-Outer seems rather clumsy to my ears whereas Revealer sounds cleverly opposite to Eraser. De gustibus and all that. Amy Z From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue Mar 26 18:01:15 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 10:01:15 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry the Saviour? (was Re: A quote, and RE: Potter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <18544021006.20020326100115@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36981 Monday, March 25, 2002, 8:48:55 AM, lucky_kari wrote: l> Afterwards, I began to wonder if this is the ending for Pettigrew. l> After all, Judas is the prototypical traitor. I could see remorse l> finally getting to him, and Voldemort mocking him. And it would mesh l> with the comment JKR made. Interesting idea. I must say that I really, *really* cannot see how JKR is going to make Harry grateful that he saved Wormtail's life. Say even if W rescues Harry, or Ron, or someone else from V -- But V would never have come back and put whoever in the position of needing to be saved in the first place if it hadn't been for W. So I really can't see Harry feeling grateful for it under any circumstances. Can any of you think of any? -- Dave From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue Mar 26 18:07:35 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 10:07:35 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Will Winky go to the Weasleys? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4544401625.20020326100735@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 36982 Monday, March 25, 2002, 8:10:15 AM, lucky_kari wrote: l> I think it'd be very out-of character. We've seen how devoted Winky l> was to the Crouches. Do you think she'd leave caring for Crouch Jr. l> even after that... ummmm... fiasco? Her primary loyalty is to Crouch Sr., and I don't think she'd want to care for her master's murderer. On the other hand, maybe it's continued loyalty that makes her say, "Master Barty, you bad boy!", as though he had only nicked some cookies or wet his pants or something. l> I personally think that Winky is the most tragic character in HP. Could be. -- Dave From dicentra at xmission.com Tue Mar 26 18:14:57 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:14:57 -0000 Subject: Death and Justice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36983 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > I wrote: > > Even Sirius knows it ("I want to commit the crime I was convicted > > for")_(liberal translation)_ > I don't have PoA at hand, either, but I think the word is "imprisoned" instead of convicted. "Convicted" implies a trial, and there was none. I also think that "crime" is actually "murder," which implies that Siri doesn't care much at that point if it's murder, justice, revenge, or whatever. > Whirdy answered: > > IIRC Black was sent directly to A with no trial, so no conviction. > > And they were after him for betrayal of the Potters, were they not, > > suspecting him of being LV's spy. > > As DG says, he got busted for "killing 13 people with one curse." That's what Stan Shunpike tells Harry on the Knight Bus, and Stan knows only what the public knows. Fudge later says that the secret keeper incident is not well known. > > Hope that helps, > > Grey Wolf > > PD: This post is more a flame than anything else. I know it, and I'm > sorry, and I'm taking a rest off right now to calm down. Flame? More like a shower of sparks and a smoulder. But douse it with a few buckets of water anyway, stir it with a stick, and make sure nothing is smoking before you leave the campsite. From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Mar 26 18:17:18 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:17:18 -0000 Subject: Harry the Saviour? (was Re: A quote, and RE: Potter In-Reply-To: <18544021006.20020326100115@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36984 Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > Interesting idea. I must say that I really, *really* cannot see > how JKR is going to make Harry grateful that he saved Wormtail's > life. Say even if W rescues Harry, or Ron, or someone else from > V -- But V would never have come back and put whoever in the position > of needing to be saved in the first place if it hadn't been for W. > So I really can't see Harry feeling grateful for it under any > circumstances. Can any of you think of any? > > -- > Dave The fact is, Wormtail didn't mean that V came back: V only needed the help of _ANY_ DE to return. Wormtail was available, but in less than three months, so would have been Crouch Jr. So, in fact, Wormtail only made the return of V a little faster, and in reality not even that, since they had to wait until after the quidditch cup, and by then V had already contacted Crouch Jr. If W had been put into prison, V would've been forced to change his plans somewhat, but not really in a significant manner. True, he needed someone to babysit him while Crouch Jr. developed the plan in Hogwarts, but he could probably have arranged any other follower to do so. Again, the fact is that peter has a life-debt with Harry (and, judging by Snapes reaction to HIS life-debt, they are powerful things indeed in Potterverse), and he's very close to V. Sooner or later, there is going to be a conflict of interests, and Peter will have to choose (I think). If that moment tips the balance for the good guys, it's altoghether possible that it means the total and absolute destruction of V, something that hasn't been managed yet. Anyway, even if none of the above is correct, and Peter is responsible for restoring the strenght of V, if he's also responsible for his downfall it will have been worth it and Harry will probably be grateful (if he's still alive, something I fear is becoming more uncertain with every passing day). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From dicentra at xmission.com Tue Mar 26 18:23:04 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:23:04 -0000 Subject: Death and Justice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36985 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "talondg" wrote: > > We are also told that Voldy intends to kill Harry and his father. > Lilly Potter is not on the target list - why? It's not like Voldy has > any problem killing off innocents. > > I cannot help but think that she was promised to Wormtail, as > reward.... Omigosh! Have we had this theoretical variation yet? Does it have a name! Tabouli's out for a bit, so maybe we'll have to wait for an acronym. (Can I suggest "M.A.K.E.M.E.B.A.R.F."?) > Death isn't punishment. Death is the removal of a danger that cannot > be removed any other way. Can you rehabilitate a scorpion? I'm afraid I'm in this camp. Dealing out death is certainly not a thing to be done casually, but given Pettigrew's total lack of remorse and his past actions, there is every reason to believe he will take life again. Granted, in our justice system, we can't punish people for what we think they might do in the future (thank heaven), but the WW operates under different rules. Would Siri and Remus be guilty of murder had they killed him? Under U.S. Law, yes. In the WW, who knows? --Dicentra, who still doesn't have any pity for Peter as he writhes on the floor crying crocodile tears From mdemeran at hotmail.com Tue Mar 26 18:51:41 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (Meg Demeranville) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:51:41 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] (unknown) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36986 Zoe Hooch said:Perhaps it came from the Gryffindor petty cash fund? Melanie replied: I personally think that is a very good explanation for where the money may have came from. I mean I am sure Hogwarts has some extra money stashed a way for "important" things. Thus, they most likely took it our of the stash to give to harry because he showed great potential as a seeker. I can't buy this theory on several grounds. First, everyone seems in awe of Harry's broom. To me, this implies that it must be a rarity to have such a nice broom. Second, the note attached says that it is his broom, not the school's, as it would be if it was paid for by the school. Third, the school brooms are noted as being older models, Cleansweeps and the like, which is brought up in PoA when Harry has to use the school brooms while his new Firebolt is being tested for hexes.(forgive me for not being able to give a specific citation, I am at work) Fourth, the other members of the team seem to use their own brooms. The twins use Cleansweeps. That is an awful lot of favoritism for the newest kid on the team to get the best and newest broom when the whole team could benefit by getting some good brooms for everyone. Lastly, when Malfoy buys his way onto the team, his father replaces all of the brooms for the team. This implies that the teams do not get new equipment unless someone pays for it. Sorry to poke holes in your theory. Feel free to refute me, but I think McGonagall purchased it (if only to make sure Gryffindor finally won the Quidditch cup over Slytherin) with her own money and is just not saying anything about it. Meg _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Mar 26 20:06:22 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:06:22 -0000 Subject: Death and Justice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36987 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "talondg" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > " 'He deserves death'. > > 'Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And > > some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be > > too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise > > cannot see all ends.' " > > -- J. R. R. Tolkien - The Lord of the Rings (LotR) > > > > That, for those here that haven't read LotR, is an exchange between > > Gandalf and Frodo about the destiny of Smeagol/Gollum. The > > similarities and parallelisms between them and D'dore, Harry and > > Wormtail are inmediatly obvious (I hope) to anyone who's read both > > books, > > Ah, but there are a couple of very important differences too. > > Smeagol/Gollum is not intrinsicly evil, in that he does not _choose_ > to be evil for evil's sake. He has been corrupted by a magical device > whose purpose is to corrupt for its own ends. > > In Harry-Potterspeak, he is under the influence of a particularly > subtle and insidious Imperious Curse, and even then, when faced with > Frodo's kindness he manages to resist it, for a while at least. He's > not really himself when the Ring is doing its thing. > I think you're misconstruing Tolkien's set-up. The Ring is the ultimate corruptor. It turns even the heroically virtuous to evil in the end. In that sense, you are right. If one continues with the Ring, one is not responsible for what happens. The case in point is Frodo (quoting from memory): "I do not choose the deed I came here to do." Darn right, he isn't choosing. He's completely passive. The Ring's in charge. However, up to that last impossible moment, he had tried very hard to hold on to his independance of the Ring. He does not take it enthusiastically, he spends half the trilogy trying to hand it to someone else: Gandalf, Aragorn, Galadriel, he stays his purpose to destroy the Ring until he is right at the Cracks of Doom, he fights against every urge to use it, and he apologizes to Sam when the Ring momentarily overcomes him. Take on the other hand, Smeagol Gollum. Smeagol already seems to be a bit of a sneak when he goes out with his best friend on the Anduin that fateful birthday. He gives up to the Ring lust without any resistance by killing his friend for it, burying the body, and then coming home and pretending nothing's happened. He furthermore goes on to use the dearly bought Ring for stealing food from the larder (hobbitish behaviour)..... Being a hobbit, and hence tough (looks in Cindy's direction) he hangs on instead of fading to a ringwraith, and by the time Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam encounter him he is the complete mess we know and a) for the tough Sams, despise, b) for us bleeding heart Frodos, pity. But the point was that he made a very bad beginning. He got himself to his destination just as surely as Pettigrew got to his. No-one denies that Pettigrew probably was afraid of Voldemort's power or that he was perhaps very strongly tempted by Voldemort. Neither can one deny that Smeagol was very strongly tempted by the Ring. But Smeagol's murder of his best friend is as blameable as Pettigrew's murder of his. Smeagol vs. Frodo is like Pettigrew vs. Bertha Jorkins. And the reason Pettigrew and Smeagol are so piteous is that they have done it to themselves, but then got way more than they wanted. > > On-topic, I believe that quote is the greatest piece of thinking of > > LotR, and I've often used it as a base against death sentence. > > Well, do not forget that Smeagol/Gollum is a literary construct who > has a place to play in the moving-forward of the plot of the book. > When Gandalf speaks, he speaks not with the voice of a wise man with > insight into the moral function of the universe, but rather, with the > voice of the authour who knows that Gollum has a further role in the > plot. One could similarily disregard any moral insight in most works of literature on the grounds that it furthers the plot. In HP, for example, Dumbledore's words to Harry about the Mirror of Erised set up the climax, but they are also worthwhile in their own right. Perhaps, in the run of things, they are most worthwhile in their own right. In Hamlet, "There is a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come - the readiness is all" is an extremely important plot mechanism if you want to get Hamlet into the necessary but very suspicious fencing match with Laertes. Should we then disregard Hamlet's "insight into the moral function of the universe" and instead keep foremost "the voice of Shakespeare who knows that Hamlet needs to fight Laertes if maximum body count is to be achieved?" > > "If they had killed him, many other people wouldn't have died", > > since they couldn't have known (the plan was to imprison him, not > > let him go free). > > They DID know. They had steeled themselves to the task at hand (taking > any life, even one as deserving of death as Wormtail, is never a > casual decision) and were about to do the deed when Harry stepped >in. I think you have misunderstood him. He said that Lupin and Black cannot offer up the justification that HP fans often use for killing Pettigrew. This is correct. At the time, Lupin and Black were faced with the alternatives of 1) killing Pettigrew and 2) handing him over to the authorities. Neither of these alternatives was difficult to carry out. Nevertheless, Lupin and Black plan to do the first. There was no question of Wormtail causing more future deaths at this point. The possibility does not even enter these men's minds. > Sirius and Lupin are treating him as if he were the most dangerous > creature in the universe, and are entirely correct to do so. Past > behaviour is on their side. I always thought that they were treating him as if he was the weakest incompetent in the universe, actually. They just don't take him seriously, and manage to mangle up a rather simple operation. Chained to Ron. HMPPHHH. > Harry's big mistake is to equate the putting-down of Wormtail with > "murder". O.K. Let's put it this way. Tomorrow morning you wake up and you see a wanted murderer with a gun and some dynamite on your back lawn. Given that he's a very dangerous person, would you be justified in shooting and killing him with your hunting rifle? Sure. I don't think anyone would disagree, though it might be considered more prudent to run out the front door and let someone else deal with it. However, consider that you look out your backwindow and see the wanted murderer lying unconscious on the lawn in a pool of blood, unarmed. Would you be justified in shooting and killing him with your hunting rifle? I don't believe so. It doesn't matter that he deserves to die. It isn't even primarily a question of the rights and wrongs of capital punishment. But it's the law's responsibility. Unless the law is failing in its responsibility, I don't see citizens as having the right to take the law upon themselves. In Book V, we will be seeing the law failing in that responsibility, but in PoA, it was ready to assume it. > Death isn't punishment. Death is the removal of a danger that cannot > be removed any other way. Exactly. This is always my argument against Capital Punishment, actually. After all, most death row inmates aren't dangerous in any way, but perhaps we should not go there. As was brought up a long time ago when I was bemoaning Rowling's out-of-hand dismissal of Vernon's views on the death penalty, this is a very touchy issue for Americans. Surprisingly touchy from a Canadian point of view. But then we don't have the death penalty currently, so our discussions are pretty much academic. If it came back, we might heat up like our Southern neighbours. > But I wouldn't be so quick to assume that his habit of giving second > chances is extended to _everybody_, but rather, I suspect it is only > given to people who deserve it. I don't believe for a second that > Dumbledore would have pardoned Wormtail. Well. There's different things you can mean by pardon. I don't think anyone should give Wormtail a second chance. He's gone a little too far and should at least be serving out the rest of his life in jail. Now, if Wormtail really repented and asked for forgiveness, a heroic Dumbledore might give it to him, but forgiveness does not equal special breaks. I nearly choked over an article in the newspaper recently about the would-be assassin of John Paul II who is now arguing that he should be let out of jail because the Pope has forgiven him, and therefore, the attempted murder he committed doesn't count. Now, that's logic worthy of Peter Pettigrew. Now, I always found it rather funny in a twisted, edgey sort of way that Lupin is all bleeding heart to Harry in the patronus practice scenes, but turns really tough in the Shrieking Shack. Eileen From catlady at wicca.net Tue Mar 26 20:42:56 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:42:56 -0000 Subject: Nimbus 2000 / Dobby / Arthurian / Salazar / H's blood / Pity Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36988 Gretchen flynn6 wrote: > Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? We know that McGonagall "sent" > it to Harry, but who paid for it? One time that this subject came around, someone made a very clever suggestion, that whenever a player makes the first-string Quidditch team, Hogwarts buys them one of the best model of standard production issue broomsticks on the market at the time. Thus, the people who had Comet 260s had made the team when the Comet 260 was the best around, the people with Cleansweep Sevens had made the team a little later when that Cleansweep was the best, and the Nimbus 2000 was the best when Harry made the team. Presumably no one else first made their House team that year, or there would have been another Nimbus 2000 at the school. In that theory, Hogwarts does not UPGRADE a player's broomstick, so the only way the Slytherins could get newer-model broomsticks was for some parent(s) to pay for them, and Hogwarts does not REPLACE a player's broomstick, thus Harry's angst about replacing the smashed Nimbus. A student who had first made the team that year would NOT have been given a Firebolt, because the Firebolt was a special limited edition model, not standard production issue. I personally don't believe that theory, but it deserved to be mentioned. Finwitch wrote: > If Dobby was house-elf to the Potter-house that was *exploded* by > Evil Voldemort, Except that the house that was exploded was a Muggle house. (That is shown in the scene in the Celluloid-Thing that was specifically mentioned as a scene that JKR had written but removed from the book because it gave too much information. I would not consider the Celluloid-Thing to be an accurate depiction of anything, except for the alleged JKR quotes in the above-mentioned hype.) Chyna Rose wrote: > I *could* see Dumbledore setting James and Lily up, although I'm < not too sure about his doing it just to get Harry. From what I can > tell, James was a very powerful wizard. And Dumbledore strikes me > as a person who does things for multiple reasons. Of course this > particular line of thought is directing me to towards the good ship > LOLLIPOPS and giving me another Reason Snape Hated James. >(Dumbledore kept Snape busy while James (masqurading as Snape; can > you say Polyjuice Potion?) wooed Lily away from Snape) I personally believe that James and Lily married for love and had their baby without planning, but I *can* imagine a scenario in which Dumbledore tells them the evidence that shows that they are the combination that will have a super-baby to fight for Goodness. As dedicated fighters against the Dark Side, and noble enough to 'choose what is right rather than what is easy', they agreed to this arrangement and both broke off their previous engagements (which COULD have been Lily to Severus and James to Florence, altho' I think they weren't). I don't believe in Lily being such a pawn (even tho' the White Pawn in Through the Looking Glass is named Lily) that she could be wooed away from her beloved by a mere display of Potter charm -- she had to know what was going on. Speaking of which, it seems to be canon that Lily and James were married and living together with baby Harry, which seems to me to rule out the Uther masquerading as Ygraine's husband scenario: James spent more than one night with her. Btw, I wonder if Polyjuice Potion changes the genes in a person's gametes along with all hiser large-enough-to-be-visible body parts? Edis wrote: > "nyarth_meow" wrote: > > Which reminds me, I was wondering where Salazar Slytherin's name > > originates. (snip) does Salazar have any connotations, > Showing my age maybe but I thought 'Salazar' was a reference to > Antonio Salazar, Fascist dictator of Portugal I agree with Edis, but wonder if the name 'Salazar' has any interesting meaning or derivation in Portuguese? For my Potterverse, I have decided that sa-Lazar changed his name from Lazar-us on purpose to sound Salacious. The most famous Lazarus was raised from death, and snakes are a symbol of coming back to life because of casting their skins, and I seem to be wandering into the popular fanfic notion of Voldemort being Slytherin re-incarnated... Lysa wrote: > Does this mean that the only person that can kill Voldie now is > Harry? How is that bond broken if someone else tries to kill > Voldie? Would Harry suffer as well? To me, this is two different questions. One is whether the blood connection means that Harry is the only person who can kill Voldemort and the other is whether it means that Harry and Voldemort are connected in such a way that neither of them can die unless both of them die. The first could be Yes without Harry having to die, and the second could be Yes in such a way that a third party could kill both of them simultaneously. I believe that both are Yes. I think that means that if someone else tried to kill Voldemort, their greatest success would be to deprive him of his body so that he would have to fly away to Albania and wait for a gullible wizard whose body he could possess to come along. The same fate could befall Harry.... However, I can't see why Harry would be affected by what happens to V (such as losing his body) or V be affected by what happens to Harry just because their DEATHS are tied together. Dicentra doesn't > have any pity for Peter as he writhes on the floor crying crocodile > tears Not thinking" *that* used to be a Marauder! How far he has fallen!"? From dicentra at xmission.com Tue Mar 26 21:13:17 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:13:17 -0000 Subject: Death and Justice and Shack/Prank parallels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36989 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > > But the point was that he made a very bad beginning. He got himself to > his destination just as surely as Pettigrew got to his. No-one denies > that Pettigrew probably was afraid of Voldemort's power or that he was > perhaps very strongly tempted by Voldemort. Neither can one deny that > Smeagol was very strongly tempted by the Ring. But Smeagol's murder of > his best friend is as blameable as Pettigrew's murder of his. > > Smeagol vs. Frodo is like Pettigrew vs. Bertha Jorkins. > > And the reason Pettigrew and Smeagol are so piteous is that they have > done it to themselves, but then got way more than they wanted. I'd have to disagree with you here. The only thing that Peter didn't expect was that by setting Voldemort on the Potters he would be causing Voldemort's downfall. A bit of quick thinking and the loss of a finger later and *poof!* Sirius is in jail for the murders Peter committed. Then it's 12 easy years as a rat, eating and sleeping, biding his time until Voldemort comes back. Or not. But Peter's not in over his head, or at least he doesn't think he is. Voldemort is giving Peter extra powers beyond what the other three Marauders ever had, which is exactly what he wanted. He seeks to reclaim those extra powers by going and finding Voldemort. In Albania, for cryinoutloud! Why doesn't Peter just find a cozy colony of country rats to hide with and call it good? Probably a combination of being sick of being a stupid rat and wanting to have those powers back so he could get back at Sirius and Remus for ruining his easy existence. I don't know. But the point is that Peter didn't go evil and then find it worse than he expected--there's no evidence he doesn't relish it plenty (otherwise, he would have turned into a rat before betraying the Potters and gone into hiding then). > > O.K. Let's put it this way. Tomorrow morning you wake up and you see a > wanted murderer with a gun and some dynamite on your back lawn. Given > that he's a very dangerous person, would you be justified in shooting > and killing him with your hunting rifle? Sure. I don't think anyone > would disagree, though it might be considered more prudent to run out > the front door and let someone else deal with it. > > However, consider that you look out your back window and see the wanted > murderer lying unconscious on the lawn in a pool of blood, unarmed. > Would you be justified in shooting and killing him with your hunting > rifle? Under our modern western laws, you wouldn't be justified by any means or stretch of the imagination. However, this is the WW--the authorities are not necessarily reliable, and the law is different. Both Lupin and Siri know that Siri was put into jail unjustly by those WW authorities. I wouldn't trust them either. You could also argue that JKR went into a little bit of W.A.R.P.D.R.I.V.E. here (Well, Another Ruddy Plot Device to Raise Interest and Vary Entertainment). Having Harry stop them from killing Peter is what enables the rest of the series to continue, and having Siri and Remus willing to kill him adds to the drama of PoA. It also draws an interesting parallel between the Shack and the Prank. (I've tried this before with less success, but bear with me.) When James ran down the tunnel to rescue Snape, was Snape's safety his first concern? Maybe, but considering the animosity between Snape and James it's highly likely a part of him wanted to let Snape go and let the chips fall where they may. But James knew exactly where the chips would fall: Right on top of his best friends' heads. Siri would certainly have been expelled as would Remus (with his secret out) and possibly criminal charges would have been filed against Siri (or whatever they do in the WW), so you could say with all accuracy that James saved Snape in order to save his friends. I can't help but think that Siri and Remus caught the parallel (if not at that moment, then later) when Harry saved Pettigrews life to save Siri and Remus. Given that, it adds poignancy to Siri's parting comment to Harry that he is truly his father's son. --Dicentra, who has been waiting and waiting to use WARPDRIVE From uncmark at yahoo.com Tue Mar 26 21:06:44 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:06:44 -0000 Subject: Gringotts, Harry's gold and broomsticks (Was Nimbus 2000) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36990 Concerning Harry's Nimbus 2000 Gretchen wrote: >This small detail has been nagging at me for a few years now. > Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? We know that > McGonagall "sent" it to Harry, but who paid for it? Would she have > paid for it herself? Would she have made arrangements for the > money to be taken out of Harry's vault at the bank? Can she do that? "Jedi Knight Jo" wrote: > Good question. I've thought about this before too. It seems to be > inferred in the books that she paid for it, but why would she show >that much preferential treatement to one student? > I also don't see how she could have made arrangements for the money > to be taken out of Harry's vault - it's his vault and his money, > and banks don't tend to let people take money out of someone else's > account. Of course there's nothing stopping her telling Harry > she'd make arrangements to get him a broom if he paid - it could > have been an 'off stage' conversation not considered important. I posted a few times with a theory of a Wizard-Guardian. Harry's Gold is probably unique in the wizarding world for a few reasons: 1. Harry is an orphan of wizards with no known surviving wizard family. 2. He has a large (huge, whatever) wizard inheritance in Gringotts. 3. He has muggle blood relatives. 4. Harry did have a Wizard godfather (Sirius) who was incarcerated for his part in Harry's parents death. >From Sorceror's Stone, we see Dumbledore has a PERSONAL interst in Harry. He personally supervises Harry's arrival at the Dursleys and sends Hagrid, his most trusted ally to first deliver Harry and 11 years later to take Harry from the Dursley's and show him Diagon Alley. Still Dumbledore never entrusts Harry's gold to the Dursley's or even informs them of it (Good Thing)!! If you reread Harry's first visit to Gringotts, notic3e two important points. 1)Hagrid has the key to Harry's vault. (I'm assuming he was entrusted with it by Dumbledore) 2) Dumbledore WRITES A LETTER to Gringotts allowing Hagrid access to vault 713. The goblins accept this, and I assume have some magic to verify the letter is not a forgery. Interesting point, though. WHY did Dumbledore have the key in the first place? I suggest that in Harry's specific circumstance the MoM named a wizard guardian to oversee Harry's wizard affairs in the absence of Sirius. So who oversaw Harry's delivery to the Dursley's? DUMBLEDORE! Dumbledore gave NUMEROUS reasons in SorSt why Harry should be raised among Muggles and considering he is over 150, I can see that he was not up to raising a baby himself, but I suggest that he still oversees Harry's upbringing closely. (As late as the end og GofF, Molly Weasley wanted to take Harry home for the summer and she asked Dumbledore, not the Weasley's) Concerning the Nimbus 2000, Dumbledore might have wrote Gringotts authorizing Harry's money to buy the broom. By all descriptions, Harry's gold is so much he would not have missed it. In GofF, Molly Weasley goes shopping for Harry. I suggest either she had Harry write a note to Gringotts (offscreen) or Dumble dore ok'ed it. I believe Dumbledore might have sent a few galleons to the Weasley's quietly for Harry's room and board. Concerning the Firebolt, I wonder how independent Gringotts is from MoM law. They allowed Sirius, an escaped convict, to order a broom for Harry from his vault? Sounds problematic if Cornelius Fudge ever paid attention. Uncmark From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Mar 26 21:32:06 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:32:06 -0000 Subject: Death and Justice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36991 DG wrote: > Sirius and Lupin are treating him as if he were the most dangerous creature in the universe, and are entirely correct to do so. Past behaviour is on their side. > > Harry's big mistake is to equate the putting-down of Wormtail with"murder". > ? said: > > Even if the other person involved is a dangerous animal, that > > doesn't mean he deserved death as punishment. Death is too _ultimate_ for punishment. > > Death isn't punishment. Death is the removal of a danger that cannot be removed any other way. Can you rehabilitate a scorpion? Sirius and Lupin wanted to kill Wormtail, not because they thought he couldn't be held safely in Azkaban, but because they thought he had it coming for betraying Harry's parents. This is what Harry understands, and what is more Lupin and Sirius affirm this by their own words, and by saying only Harry has the "right to decide". That would make no sense at all if the decision to be made was "Is Wormtail such a present danger that we have to kill him immediately in self-defense?" If Sirius and Lupin had killed Wormtail, it would have been to satisfy their own need for revenge and they would have been no better than Voldemort. Soldiers kill under orders to achieve a strategic objective. What strategic objective would have been served by killing Wormtail? Keeping him from returning to Voldemort? But Wormtail was not at all eager to return to Voldemort and decided to do so only *after* his exposure and escape. Only Harry had any idea that Wormtail might return to the Dark Lord, because only he knew of Trelawney's prophecy. But as Dumbledore says, such predictions can not be the basis for our choices. If a prophecy is not real, then it has no bearing on the future. If it is a real prediction, fated to come true, then no decision can alter it. If Harry had let Wormtail be killed, Trelawney's prediction would simply have applied to ghost Wormtail instead. Ghost Wormtail could have led Bertha to her doom, Voldie could have possessed her, broken the memory charm from inside, and gone on to free Barty Jr. just as before. In the wizarding world, death is *not* ultimate. JKR has designed her world this way, IMO, so that she can look at the question of whether someone "deserves" death apart from the question of self defense. Pippin From dicentra at xmission.com Tue Mar 26 22:29:21 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:29:21 -0000 Subject: Death and Justice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36992 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > Sirius and Lupin wanted to kill Wormtail, not because they > thought he couldn't be held safely in Azkaban, but because they > thought he had it coming for betraying Harry's parents. This is > what Harry understands, and what is more Lupin and Sirius > affirm this by their own words, and by saying only Harry has the > "right to decide." That would make no sense at all if the decision > to be made was "Is Wormtail such a present danger that we > have to kill him immediately in self-defense?" If Sirius and Lupin > had killed Wormtail, it would have been to satisfy their own need > for revenge and they would have been no better than Voldemort. I will grant you that Siri and Remus are in it for revenge, not to protect society or whatever. So if Harry doesn't step in and they kill Peter, what happens to them? Are they arrested and sent to Azkaban (with or without a trial)? or does the "warrior ethic" of the WW call their actions just? Was Harry protecting them from some terrible consequences or did he just not like the thought that they would have blood on their hands? Harry's words suggest the latter, IMO. BUT, if the WW justice system would have punished them, why was Remus so eager to jump in with Siri (who would figure he had nothing to lose)? That really doesn't seem rational, and Remus isn't in an irrational state at that point. Would the WW say that they were no better than Voldemort if they had avenged the Potters? I know from our perspective they would be, but what about the internal logic of the novel? We've discovered many times that it's not attuned to turn-of-the-21st century western sensibilities (e.g. "real wizards don't apologize"). So does that mean JKR is asking the reader to judge the WW or simply to accept it on its own terms? --Dicentra, who really doesn't know the answers to these questions From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Tue Mar 26 18:48:43 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:48:43 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry the Saviour? (was Re: A quote, and RE: Potter References: <18544021006.20020326100115@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <000001c1d4f9$f49d9dc0$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 36993 . .But V would never have come back and put whoever in the position > of needing to be saved in the first place if it hadn't been for W. > So I really can't see Harry feeling grateful for it under any > circumstances. Can any of you think of any? > >Dave Dumbledore says that Pettigrew is indebted to Harry after HP saves his life. So maybe a situation will arise wherein Pettigre has no option but to go against Voldemort. For example, if Voldemort wishes, initially, to avoid trying to murder Harry a second time he might command Pettigrew to try first, at which point - owing a life debt to Harry - Pettigrew probably could not. Felicia From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Tue Mar 26 18:59:45 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:59:45 -0000 Subject: Prof. Sprout's First Name References: Message-ID: <000101c1d4f9$f4df3aa0$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 36994 ----- Original Message ----- From: "finwitch" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 9:13 AM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Prof. Sprout's First Name & Salazar > > Not all- Minerva McGonagall, remember? What about Florence Sprout? > Herbology professor with both names having to do with plants sounds > all nice to me. > Five starts and brownie points, I love it Florence Sprout! Felicia From ruben at satec.es Tue Mar 26 22:28:13 2002 From: ruben at satec.es (elirtai) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:28:13 -0000 Subject: Salazar name meaning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36995 "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > Edis wrote: > > Showing my age maybe but I thought 'Salazar' was a reference to > > Antonio Salazar, Fascist dictator of Portugal > > I agree with Edis, but wonder if the name 'Salazar' has any > interesting meaning or derivation in Portuguese? This starts getting somewhat off topic. Anyway, here it goes... I also agree that JKR based the name on Antonio Salazar, after her own close knowledge of Portuguese history. That's a name in two levels: based on a dictator, and also an alliteration of "Slytherin". I doubt there was more to her choice than that. About the name meaning, well, it also exists in Spanish where it's supposed to have a Basque origin. The Portuguese name could well have the same roots (Portuguese and Spanish history was shared for a long time). The oldest dated Salazars died in 1344, but the name already existed as a place name. Its meaning in old Basque would be something like 'the old hall'. An interesting side note: there was an inquisitor three centuries later, name of Salazar, who ordered several witch burnings. Wonder if JKR knew that. Elirtai (who has just looked up all of this and had no idea before) [MOD NOTE: Folks, this is all interesting, but remember when replying that, if your message does not contain any reference to the books, it should to go to HPFGU-OTChatter, which can be found at http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/otchatter --mod!John] From scaryfairymary at hotmail.com Tue Mar 26 22:39:16 2002 From: scaryfairymary at hotmail.com (pigwidgeon2k) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:39:16 -0000 Subject: Harry as Arthur? WAS: Harry the Saviour? In-Reply-To: <005e01c1d382$2b014fc0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36996 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" wrote: > While we're discussing parallels between HP and Christ, I'd like to point out some similarities between the series and Arthurian *legend* > 4 - Someone (lady of the lake-esqe) will give Harry a special >weapon (wand?) to help him fight V. after his special wand is >broken/lost. Maybe the next time V and Harry have a go at it, V >figures out a way to destroy Harry's wand, everyone is in complete >despair because the only effective weapon against V's Avada Kedavra >is broken -- and then Harry gets a special gift. This is the third time I've had to try and post this reply so I'm sorry if the point has been made in the meantime. Anyway, I find this idea really interesting. The first person who sprang to mind was Moaning Myrtle. She does a lot of hanging around there on the bottom of the lake, you never know what could have been dropped accidently/purposely, that would prove very useful to Harry. Apart from the fact that we all know that she has a bit of a thing for our hero!! However, I dont think that Harry's wand will be broken or lost. There's been too much stress put on its importance for it not to be there in the final showdown between Harry and V. From trog at wincom.net Tue Mar 26 21:36:48 2002 From: trog at wincom.net (talondg) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:36:48 -0000 Subject: Death and Justice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36997 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > The Ring is the ultimate corruptor. It turns even the heroically > virtuous to evil in the end. In that sense, you are right. If one > continues with the Ring, one is not responsible for what happens. But note that the Ring is an outside influence, active in its own right. It has its own sort of intelligence and agenda _besides_ the corruptive nature of the power it offers. People have done evil things for corruptive influences - money, power, fame, drugs - but nobody's suitcase full of money is conciously attempting to control them. Nobody's suitcase of money is *alive* in the way the Ring appears to be. The Gollum -> Wormtail analogy falls down on this point. Gollum is swept along under the influence of the Ring. He resists from time to time, but the Ring is stronger than him, and ultimately lays claim to him. Wormtail, however, is the victim of naught but his own choices. He's a willing participant. He could stop and atone at any time, but he doesn't want to. > > > "If they had killed him, many other people wouldn't have died", > > > since they couldn't have known (the plan was to imprison him, > > > not let him go free). > > They DID know. They had steeled themselves to the task at hand > > (taking any life, even one as deserving of death as Wormtail, is > > never a casual decision) and were about to do the deed when Harry > > stepped in. > At the time, Lupin and Black were faced with the alternatives of > 1) killing Pettigrew and 2) handing him over to the authorities. > Neither of these alternatives was difficult to > carry out. Nevertheless, Lupin and Black plan to do the first. There > was no question of Wormtail causing more future deaths at this > point. The possibility does not even enter these men's minds. I strongly disagree. The possibility that Wormtail was about to wreak further havoc was what motivated Sirius to escape from Azkaban, and Lupin's understanding of what happened on that fateful night convinces him, too, that Wormtail is too dangerous to live. They have him NOW, and they intend to deal with him. They intend to ensure that he will cause no further harm. A live and in custody Wormtail will clear Sirius' name. A dead Wormtail might, but is less likely to do so. Sirius could use Wormtail to suit his own ends, but he has no intention of doing so. Sirius wants him _neutralized_, even at the risk of his being sent back to Azkaban. > O.K. Let's put it this way. Tomorrow morning you wake up and you see > a wanted murderer with a gun and some dynamite on your back lawn. > Given that he's a very dangerous person, would you be justified in > shooting and killing him with your hunting rifle? Sure. I don't > think anyone would disagree, though it might be considered more > prudent to run out the front door and let someone else deal with it. If I recognise him, and I see he is carrying weapons that exert deadly force, then it is my RESPONSIBILITY to take him out before he can do whatever it is he's planning on. If I fail to act, he may kill someone before "someone else" can come deal with him. (If I see no weapons, then I'm not justified in using deadly force, or indeed any force at all. In that case, I'd notify the authorities and then try and keep him under observation until they arrive) > However, consider that you look out your backwindow and see the > wanted murderer lying unconscious on the lawn in a pool of blood, > unarmed. Would you be justified in shooting and killing him with > your hunting rifle? That really depends on the situation. Who is he? What has he done? What was the nature of his crimes? What's the context? I note, however, that whoever he is, he is extremely unlikely to transform ito a rat and scamper off, or suddenly vanish in a puff of smoke. There's also a distinct lack of Evil Overlords running around for him to revive. The stakes are not as high in your example. He is less likely to be able to escape, and less likely to be able to do harm if he does, for most reasonable instances of human beings. But let's tweak the example a little bit. At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, let's pretend that 1) I'm French 2) my yard is in France 3) It's 1941 and 4) that's Adolf Hitler lying unarmed in my backyard. Changes things, doesn't it? DG From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Mar 26 23:18:56 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:18:56 -0000 Subject: Death and Justice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36998 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "talondg" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > > > > The Ring is the ultimate corruptor. It turns even the heroically > > virtuous to evil in the end. In that sense, you are right. If one > > continues with the Ring, one is not responsible for what happens. > > But note that the Ring is an outside influence, active in its own > right. It has its own sort of intelligence and agenda _besides_ the > corruptive nature of the power it offers. And Voldemort doesn't? > I strongly disagree. The possibility that Wormtail was about to wreak > further havoc was what motivated Sirius to escape from Azkaban, and > Lupin's understanding of what happened on that fateful night convinces > him, too, that Wormtail is too dangerous to live. They have him NOW, > and they intend to deal with him. They intend to ensure that he will > cause no further harm. That's not how Lupin and Black see the situation. They do not see Pettigrew as a threat. And he shouldn't have been, if they were just a wee bit more careful. > > O.K. Let's put it this way. Tomorrow morning you wake up and you see > > a wanted murderer with a gun and some dynamite on your back lawn. > > Given that he's a very dangerous person, would you be justified in > > shooting and killing him with your hunting rifle? Sure. I don't > > think anyone would disagree, though it might be considered more > > prudent to run out the front door and let someone else deal with it. > > If I recognise him, and I see he is carrying weapons that exert deadly > force, then it is my RESPONSIBILITY to take him out before he can do > whatever it is he's planning on. If I fail to act, he may kill someone > before "someone else" can come deal with him. Sorry, by "someone else" I meant the police coming down the street after him. :-) No, I agree. > > However, consider that you look out your backwindow and see the > > wanted murderer lying unconscious on the lawn in a pool of blood, > > unarmed. Would you be justified in shooting and killing him with > > your hunting rifle? > > That really depends on the situation. Who is he? What has he done? > What was the nature of his crimes? What's the context? Why would that matter? I don't see how his deserving death factors into your own behaviour. > The stakes are not as high in your example. He is less likely to be > able to escape, and less likely to be able to do harm if he does, for > most reasonable instances of human beings. > > But let's tweak the example a little bit. At the risk of invoking > Godwin's law, let's pretend that 1) I'm French 2) my yard is in France > 3) It's 1941 and 4) that's Adolf Hitler lying unarmed in my backyard. > > Changes things, doesn't it? 2) makes this a faulty parallel to the Shrieking Shack situation. As has been pointed out many times before, there was no reasonable expectation on anyone's behalf that Pettigrew would be able to escape. Lupin and Black never consider it, nor does anyone else. Whereas in France, one would be certain that sans shooting, Hitler would be gone quickly. However, it being Adolf Hitler... does that change anything? No. When I was typing up my original example, I wrote "Osama Bin Laden" instead of "murderer." Then, I decided that I would be a little sensitive and settle for an unknown murderer. Eileen, who notices that her arguments tend to have a sort of bleeding-heart conservative tinge to them, and marvels at the combination From william.truderung at sympatico.ca Tue Mar 26 23:29:54 2002 From: william.truderung at sympatico.ca (mongo62aa) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:29:54 -0000 Subject: If you were Headmaster of Hogwarts... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 36999 I am curious if anybody else has thought about what they would have Harry learn if they were Headmaster of Hogwarts. I think that we can take it as a given that at some point, probably in his seventh year, Haryy will face Voldemort, probably alone, and only one of them (at most) will be still alive after that. If that is the case, then I would think that it is ESSENTIAL that Harry be given far more preparation than he is getting now. So what would I do? First of all, eliminate all of the nonessential classes that Harry is currently taking, in order to free up time for more useful studies. History of Magic: drop it. Divination: drop it. Astronomy: drop it. Herbology, and Care of Magical Creatures: there is some useful material here, but not enough to justify the time spent, in my opinion. Drop both of them. Potions: keep it, but advise Snape not to give detentions without the concurrence of another Professor. We cannot afford to waste time on unnecessary detentions. Transformation: definately keep. Add training in animagi--this ability could be very useful to Harry in the final confrontation. Charms: definately keep. Flitwick was a dueling champion once as well; have him give intensive dueling training to Harry. DADA: definately keep. In fact, I would expand this with as much Auror training as Harry can handle. This would be the most important training that he would take. In addition, I would add several new classes. Muggle Martial Arts: these would be useful in themselves if Harry loses his wand at some point, and also help Harry with his physical stamina, strength, speed, etc. as well as his mental toughness and discipline. Physical Training: taken in conjunction with Muggle Martial Arts to improve Harry's physical condition. This may well be part of Auror training, rather than a separate class. However, all of this training would not be enough to beat Voldemort, who would remain much older and more experienced. I would also teach Harry as much as possible of the 'Old Magic,' whatever that is. It is apparently very powerful, and difficult for Voldemort to break. Most important of all, I would have Harry learn some 'New Magic,' by which I mean magic specially developed for Harry, and which Voldemort cannot know how to counter. I suspect that Hermione would play an important role in this. Ron, also, would play a role, developing strategies and tactics to deliver that 'New Magic' while keeping Harry alive. If anybody has comments, I would love to hear them. Bill From john at walton.vu Tue Mar 26 23:24:44 2002 From: john at walton.vu (John Walton) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:24:44 +0000 Subject: Relative evil of Voldemort & The One Ring (was: Re: Death and Justice) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37000 talondg wrote: > People have done evil things for corruptive influences - money, power, > fame, drugs - but nobody's suitcase full of money is conciously > attempting to control them. Nobody's suitcase of money is *alive* in > the way the Ring appears to be. > > The Gollum -> Wormtail analogy falls down on this point. Gollum is > swept along under the influence of the Ring. He resists from time to > time, but the Ring is stronger than him, and ultimately lays claim to > him. Hang on. Surely Lord Voldemort is just as evil as the Ring in _The_Lord_of_the_Rings_. A case could certainly be made, using examples of Wormtail's snivelling and wimpiness, that Wormtail is at least as "swept along" as Gollum. Moreover, the Ring is an impersonal object, though it does involve Sauron; however, one cannot see Sauron when one is not wearing it. In comparison, and particularly during Voldemort's reign, and to an extent in the GOF-and-beyond of canon, Wormtail is under the control of Voldemort as much as Quirrell ever was. > But let's tweak the example a little bit. At the risk of invoking > Godwin's law, let's pretend that 1) I'm French 2) my yard is in France > 3) It's 1941 and 4) that's Adolf Hitler lying unarmed in my backyard. *yells* Godwin's Law! I win! (Kidding, kidding. Those of you new to Godwin's Law, check out http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/) > Changes things, doesn't it? Yep. For those responding to this, please remember that discussion of the Holocaust not directly relevant to HP (usually in the context of Voldemort's reign) tends to invite impassioned (okay, irate) responses from all sides. As such, these non-canonical references are one of the very few things not allowed here at HPFGU. See the Humongous Bigfile (www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin) for the others. --John PS. Of course, the Gollum/Wormtail analysis belies the Wormtail/Wormtongue similarity from LOTR. But that's another Very Secret Diary... :D ____________________________________________ Ai! Lantar i Mindonu ilcalar, || Alas! The gleaming Twin Towers are falling, Helwa Menello, uryala || Out of the pale blue sky, blazing Mir mallennar analye. || Into the richest streets --from Quenya poem, Minqu?a Yavanni?, "September Eleventh", by Kai MacTane John Walton || john at walton.vu ____________________________________________ From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Wed Mar 27 00:06:38 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 00:06:38 -0000 Subject: Wormtail/Life Debts/Justice Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37001 Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > Interesting idea. I must say that I really, *really* cannot see > how JKR is going to make Harry grateful that he saved Wormtail's > life. Say even if W rescues Harry, or Ron, or someone else from > V -- But V would never have come back and put whoever in the position > of needing to be saved in the first place if it hadn't been for W. > So I really can't see Harry feeling grateful for it under any > circumstances. Can any of you think of any? > > -- > Dave Only thing I can think is that Wormtail will do something important to Voldemort's downfall. I agree that saving someone's life from V won't be enough to make Harry feel better; I think Harry is going to have a huge guilt/ responsibility complex about everything Voldemort does. You know, a lot has been made of the `gleam' and Voldemort's blood tie to Harry. There are many and various theories, like Harry being able to kill Voldemort by killing himself... Maybe what's *really* (or at least equally) important is Voldemort's "flesh of the servant" tie to Wormtail. If Harry isn't able to undo the spell by himself, maybe the blood and the flesh together will have a chance And if one of them has to die in the process, hopefully it'll be Wormtail. ____________________________________________________________________ Wizarding justice Dicentra wrote: >So if Harry doesn't step in and they kill Peter, what happens to them? >Are they arrested and sent to Azkaban (with or without a trial)? or >does the "warrior ethic" of the WW call their actions just? Was Harry >protecting them from some terrible consequences or did he just not >like the thought that they would have blood on their hands? See, I've been wondering about that too. How much "warrior ethic" is left in the ministry, with Fudge in charge? 12 years previous, I think that it would have been considered just. I mean, you've got Aurors using Cruciatus (for torture of suspects, most likely), and those trial-things did seem a bit bloodthirsty. I think Fudge would have sent them off to Azkaban, ASAP. He seems to stand apart from many other characters as an appeaser rather than a warrior. (Unless, of course, you subscribe to F.I.E., which I don't; I like my Fudge gray and Chamberlain-esque.) And I think this tendency is going to cause a lot of problems, soon I imagine OOTP starting off in a period of quiet, with Voldemort lying low and plotting, and the ministry doing nothing at all You're right about Remus, though. He does seem rational and vengeful all at the same time. He already sort of lives of the outskirts of society as a werewolf, though. IMHO, he weighed the options and decided the risk of Azkaban was worth it, that he would probably end up living on the run with Sirius, and that that wouldn't be *so* bad... Caroline (writing from a South Carolina, a US state where the unknown-murderer- in-the-yard would most likely be a goner; here you can't be charged for killing anyone invading your property) From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Mar 27 00:57:25 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 00:57:25 -0000 Subject: Relative evil of Voldemort & The One Ring (was: Re: Death and Justice) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37002 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., John Walton wrote: > talondg wrote: > > > People have done evil things for corruptive influences - money, power, > > fame, drugs - but nobody's suitcase full of money is conciously > > attempting to control them. Nobody's suitcase of money is *alive* in > > the way the Ring appears to be. > > > > The Gollum -> Wormtail analogy falls down on this point. Gollum is > > swept along under the influence of the Ring. He resists from time to > > time, but the Ring is stronger than him, and ultimately lays claim to > > him. > > Hang on. Surely Lord Voldemort is just as evil as the Ring in > _The_Lord_of_the_Rings_. A case could certainly be made, using examples of > Wormtail's snivelling and wimpiness, that Wormtail is at least as "swept > along" as Gollum. Moreover, the Ring is an impersonal object, though it does > involve Sauron; however, one cannot see Sauron when one is not wearing it. > In comparison, and particularly during Voldemort's reign, and to an extent > in the GOF-and-beyond of canon, Wormtail is under the control of Voldemort > as much as Quirrell ever was. Tolkien's point in having Frodo spare Gollum was not that Gollum could have been rehabilitated. Tolkien made it clear that there was little hope of that. Nor did Tolkien believe that Gollum should have escaped punishment because was not evil in the beginning. "Nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so." His point was either all of us deserve pity (because we are all fallen, miserable sinners) or none of us do. But only those who show mercy "not to strike without need" will receive it. > > > But let's tweak the example a little bit. At the risk of invoking > > Godwin's law, let's pretend that 1) I'm French 2) my yard is in France > > 3) It's 1941 and 4) that's Adolf Hitler lying unarmed in my backyard. > 3) Doesn't hold up.The analogy would be not 1941 in the middle of the French resistance, but 1957 or thereabouts. In PoA, the enemy has been vanquished for twelve years and civil authority has been re-established. Sirius is perfectly confident that with Pettigrew in hand he'll be able to clear his name. He never would have offered Harry a home otherwise. Sirius never feared Pettigrew would bring Voldemort back to power. His fear was that Voldemort would regain power some other way, and then Pettigrew would kill Harry in order to convince Voldemort's supporters of his loyalty. Sirius says Peter would never go back unless Voldemort was once again the "biggest bully in the playground." The reader has been led to expect otherwise, because of Trelawney's prophecy, and because of what Fudge says about "give him back his most devoted servant". But Fudge is talking about Sirius Black, whom everyone thinks to be magically powerful, not Peter, whose power everyone underestimated. Pippin From spottydog at worldnet.att.net Wed Mar 27 01:13:07 2002 From: spottydog at worldnet.att.net (CARRIE MUNGAI) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:13:07 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Gringotts, Harry's gold and broomsticks (Was Nimbus 2000) References: Message-ID: <002a01c1d52c$8eb9c0a0$f7a6fea9@s0023817978> No: HPFGUIDX 37003 ----- Original Message ----- From: uncmark To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 1:06 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Gringotts, Harry's gold and broomsticks (Was Nimbus 2000) Concerning Harry's Nimbus 2000 Gretchen wrote: >This small detail has been nagging at me for a few years now. > Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? We know that > McGonagall "sent" it to Harry, but who paid for it? Would she have > paid for it herself? Would she have made arrangements for the > money to be taken out of Harry's vault at the bank? Can she do IMO, the broom came from the "same place" that school equipment always comes from. The budget. Every school I have ever attended, from kindergarten through grad school, has periodically replaced worn out equipment with newer stuff. It seems obvious that Prof. McGonagall, recognizing Harry's talent at flying and wanting to maximize her houses' chance at the Quidditch Cup, uses a portion of her houses' allotment of the budget to aquire a Nimbus 2000. Spottydog [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zoehooch at yahoo.com Wed Mar 27 01:36:24 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 01:36:24 -0000 Subject: (unknown) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37004 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Meg Demeranville" wrote: > > Zoe Hooch said:Perhaps it came from the Gryffindor petty cash fund? > > Melanie replied: I personally think that is a very good explanation for > where the money may have came from. I mean I am sure Hogwarts has some > extra money stashed a way for "important" things. Thus, they most likely > took it our of the stash to give to harry because he showed great potential > as a seeker. > > I can't buy this theory on several grounds. First, everyone seems in awe of > Harry's broom. To me, this implies that it must be a rarity to have such a > nice broom. Second, the note attached says that it is his broom, not the > school's, as it would be if it was paid for by the school. If McGonnagle has discretionary funds, why can't she buy a broomstick for Harry? Just because it may been purchased with funds associated with Hogwarts in no way means that the Nimbus 2000 somehow belongs to the school. Hogwart's ain't real life. I believe that the faculty as whole, save of course Snape, is probably quite grateful to Harry Potter. If Voldemart had succeeded in killing Harry, the rule of terror would have just kept going and gotten stronger and probably a lot of Hogwart's faculty might be dead. Why not buy the boy a broom? I've always felt that McGonnagle feels a bit of guilt for placing Harry with the Dursley's ... she more than anyone knew what a dysfunctional family it was when they left Harry. Guilty enough, perhaps, to want to buy Harry the best broomstick ever made. Not to mention that ROI on the investment is quite high; Gryffindor will then have an excellent chance of winning the Quidditch championship and the house cup. Zoe Hooch From zoehooch at yahoo.com Wed Mar 27 01:37:29 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 01:37:29 -0000 Subject: Who bought the Nimbus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37005 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Meg Demeranville" wrote: > > Zoe Hooch said:Perhaps it came from the Gryffindor petty cash fund? > > Melanie replied: I personally think that is a very good explanation for > where the money may have came from. I mean I am sure Hogwarts has some > extra money stashed a way for "important" things. Thus, they most likely > took it our of the stash to give to harry because he showed great potential > as a seeker. > > I can't buy this theory on several grounds. First, everyone seems in awe of > Harry's broom. To me, this implies that it must be a rarity to have such a > nice broom. Second, the note attached says that it is his broom, not the > school's, as it would be if it was paid for by the school. Third, the school > brooms are noted as being older models, Cleansweeps and the like, which is > brought up in PoA when Harry has to use the school brooms while his new > Firebolt is being tested for hexes.(forgive me for not being able to give a > specific citation, I am at work) Fourth, the other members of the team seem > to use their own brooms. The twins use Cleansweeps. That is an awful lot of > favoritism for the newest kid on the team to get the best and newest broom > when the whole team could benefit by getting some good brooms for everyone. > Lastly, when Malfoy buys his way onto the team, his father replaces all of > the brooms for the team. This implies that the teams do not get new > equipment unless someone pays for it. > > Sorry to poke holes in your theory. Feel free to refute me, but I think > McGonagall purchased it (if only to make sure Gryffindor finally won the > Quidditch cup over Slytherin) with her own money and is just not saying > anything about it. > > Meg > > _________________________________________________________________ > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Tue Mar 26 23:29:13 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:29:13 -0000 Subject: Death and Justice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37006 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" wrote: > for revenge and they would have been no better than Voldemort. > > I will grant you that Siri and Remus are in it for revenge, not to > protect society or whatever. > > So if Harry doesn't step in and they kill Peter, what happens to them? > Are they arrested and sent to Azkaban (with or without a trial)? or > does the "warrior ethic" of the WW call their actions just? Was Harry > protecting them from some terrible consequences or did he just not > like the thought that they would have blood on their hands? This is an interesting question. I tend to think that the WW would have applauded them. After all, Peter Pettigrew was a hero for supposedly tracking down Sirius Black. And then on the sides, some people will criticize them (as Fudge criticized Pettigrew) under their breaths. But, I do think the Potterverse is Livian and that they would have been honoured for doing it. > Would the WW say that they were no better than Voldemort if they had > avenged the Potters? I know from our perspective they would be, but > what about the internal logic of the novel? Well, I wouldn't have called them no better than Voldemort if they had gone ahead. I'm a bit sick of this, "We're no better than X, if we do this." Yes, if we do "whatever-it-is", we were wrong, but we usually still are better than "whatever-else." I would still think of Lupin and Black as upright people, even if I thought they had made the wrong decision in the Shack. >We've discovered many > times that it's not attuned to turn-of-the-21st century western > sensibilities (e.g. "real wizards don't apologize"). So does that > mean JKR is asking the reader to judge the WW or simply to accept it > on its own terms? I think that to some extent JKR wants us to judge the WW, but only to the extent with which you judge Achilles's behaviour, reading the Iliad. Every modern reader will go, "He's a jerk." but if you want to enter into the story, you have to learn to somewhat appreciate his heroic ethos. And, you'll learn that these heroes are admirable in some ways that we perhaps don't think of that much. Eileen, wearing her Lucky Kari viking hat From uncmark at yahoo.com Wed Mar 27 01:21:50 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 01:21:50 -0000 Subject: Gringotts, Harry's gold and broomsticks (Was Nimbus 2000) In-Reply-To: <002a01c1d52c$8eb9c0a0$f7a6fea9@s0023817978> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37007 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "CARRIE MUNGAI" wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: uncmark > To: HPforGrownups at y... > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 1:06 PM > Subject: [HPforGrownups] Gringotts, Harry's gold and broomsticks (Was Nimbus 2000) > > > Concerning Harry's Nimbus 2000 > Gretchen wrote: > >This small detail has been nagging at me for a few years now. > > Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? We know that > > McGonagall "sent" it to Harry, but who paid for it? Would she have > > paid for it herself? Would she have made arrangements for the > > money to be taken out of Harry's vault at the bank? Can she do > IMO, the broom came from the "same place" that school equipment always comes from. The budget. Every school I have ever attended, from kindergarten through grad school, has periodically replaced worn out equipment with newer stuff. It seems obvious that Prof. McGonagall, recognizing Harry's talent at flying and wanting to maximize her houses' chance at the Quidditch Cup, uses a portion of her houses' allotment of the budget to aquire a Nimbus 2000. Spottydog > So a first year student gets special dispensation to fly AND house funds to buy a state of the art flying broom? I realize the Potterverse is not america, but I think they do have the concepts of Conflict of Interest, favoritism, and misuse of funds. Considering Lucius Malfoy is on the Board of Governor's in books 1 & 2, if McGonagall had used house funds for Harry's broom, she would soon have to justify her actions before the board. She would at least have her position at risk, almost certainly losing the Head of House position and possibly her teaching credentials. Considering Malfoy's connections, she might be accused of embezzlement and who knows what kind of accusations a Death Eater could think up. Uncmark From uncmark at yahoo.com Wed Mar 27 03:02:28 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 03:02:28 -0000 Subject: Free Elves Unite Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37008 I've seen several postings of Dobby and Winky going to the Weasleys, assuming they would be sent by Dumbledore or somehow have their employment transferred. One Flaw about that assumption, Dobby and Winky are FREE! At first I thought Hermione was being a typical flaky teenage protester picketing for Save the Whales and Stop Nuclear Testing, but Hermione seems to have brought to the forefront a truly overlooked group. Originally I laughed at her stands on Medical Leave and Retirement. wondering what an elf nedded with medical care (with their magic I assumed they could heal themselves), but I reread the sections on Dobby and Winky. Dobby, if not physically beaten himself, was ordered to injure himself. Winky, while following her duty to keep secrets was made an accessory to jailbreaking, harboring a fugitive, and IMPERIO (one of the unforgivable curses) Are the Hogwart's elves aware of the treatment of their kind by others? Dobby probably saw the worst of any elves mistreatment as the servant of a Death Eater. I don't want to know all that went on with Winky in Crouch's house (A Deatheater capable of patricide and a overzealous Auror that encourages the Use of UnForgiveable Curses). As far as Winky and Dobby going to the Weasley's. I believe Dumbledore's happy with their work at Hogwart's. They have summer vacation though and I had an interesting thought how they might summer at the Burroe, not as houseelves, but as elfs. Picture the end of GofF as both Harry and Winky were in the infirmary. A redheadedc 3rd year girl is waiting for news when a strange character appears. D: Oh excuse me Miss...I know you! You be Wheezy's sister! G: I'm Ginny Weasley. You're Dobby? The elf Hermione talks about? D: Harry Potter talks about you! G: He does? I'm waiting for news of him. D: Harry Potter be fine! He be strong wizard! Dobby be worried about Winky, he is (Dobby talks about Winky for a while) G: Hermione told me about you two. Will she be OK? D: I worry about Winky. School ends soon, then where will we go? G: You know, Mom always wanted an elf... but we couldn't pay much and Hermione's right. You are free. Would you like to come to our house as our guest? D: Guest, Miss Wheezy? No wizard has ever had a house elf as a guest! G: But you'rew not just a house-elf. You're free and a friend of Harry's. Will you come as my friend? I know. It's a little cheesey. But if Dobby and Winky came to the Weasley's, it would possible only as an invite rather than a job. Uncmark From spottydog at worldnet.att.net Wed Mar 27 03:12:39 2002 From: spottydog at worldnet.att.net (CARRIE MUNGAI) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:12:39 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Gringotts, Harry's gold and broomsticks (Was Nimbus 2000) References: Message-ID: <001501c1d53d$4392cca0$82a4520c@s0023817978> No: HPFGUIDX 37009 ----- Original Message ----- From: uncmark To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 5:21 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Gringotts, Harry's gold and broomsticks (Was Nimbus 2000) --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "CARRIE MUNGAI" wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: uncmark > To: HPforGrownups at y... > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 1:06 PM > Subject: [HPforGrownups] Gringotts, Harry's gold and broomsticks (Was Nimbus 2000) > > > Concerning Harry's Nimbus 2000 > Gretchen wrote: > >This small detail has been nagging at me for a few years now. > > Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? We know that > > McGonagall "sent" it to Harry, but who paid for it? Would she have > > paid for it herself? Would she have made arrangements for the > > money to be taken out of Harry's vault at the bank? Can she do > IMO, the broom came from the "same place" that school equipment always comes from. The budget. Every school I have ever attended, from kindergarten through grad school, has periodically replaced worn out equipment with newer stuff. It seems obvious that Prof. McGonagall, recognizing Harry's talent at flying and wanting to maximize her houses' chance at the Quidditch Cup, uses a portion of her houses' allotment of the budget to aquire a Nimbus 2000. Spottydog > So a first year student gets special dispensation to fly AND house funds to buy a state of the art flying broom? I realize the Potterverse is not america, but I think they do have the concepts of Conflict of Interest, favoritism, and misuse of funds. Considering Lucius Malfoy is on the Board of Governor's in books 1 & 2, if McGonagall had used house funds for Harry's broom, she would soon have to justify her actions before the board. She would at least have her position at risk, almost certainly losing the Head of House position and possibly her teaching credentials. Considering Malfoy's connections, she might be accused of embezzlement and who knows what kind of accusations a Death Eater could think up. Uncmark In defense of my position, teachers are allowed input into the use of funds for school equipment. As long as Dumbledore approved, there is no conflict of interest and no embezzlement. And I doubt very seriously that this happened without Dumbledore's knowledge and complete approval. The other heads of houses can choose to spend their funds as they see fit. I don't see how Mr. Malfoy could object considering he gave 7 new Nimbus 2001 to the Slytherin team. Perhaps Snape just spent his house's funds on other equipment, and McGonigall, who strikes me as being pretty shrewd, had been saving for just such a possibility. It's not that far-fetched, considering the other plot-lines. As an example, when researchers are given a grant, they spend the money to further their field and give an accounting to the board of governors not, necessarily, to the endowing party. Spottydog 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. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From saintbacchus at yahoo.com Wed Mar 27 03:59:24 2002 From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 03:59:24 -0000 Subject: Who bought the Nimbus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37010 Zoe Hooch writes: << If McGonnagle has discretionary funds, why can't she buy a broomstick for Harry? Just because it may been purchased with funds associated with Hogwarts in no way means that the Nimbus 2000 somehow belongs to the school. Hogwart's ain't real life. >> Um, yes it does. Imagine Lucius Malfoy (or any parent, really) finding out that money that could have gone towards his son's education went to buying Harry Potter a broom. A *broom*! It's not even important to his education! Even if the notoriously fair-minded McGonagall would stand for that, I just can't believe the school could get away with it. Spottydog argues: << In defense of my position, teachers are allowed input into the use of funds for school equipment. As long as Dumbledore approved, there is no conflict of interest and no embezzlement. And I doubt very seriously that this happened without Dumbledore's knowledge and complete approval. The other heads of houses can choose to spend their funds as they see fit. I don't see how Mr. Malfoy could object considering he gave 7 new Nimbus 2001 to the Slytherin team. >> Malfoy would have plenty to say; he used his own money to buy the brooms for the Slytherin team, whereas McGonagall used the school's - in essence, she used his money, too! And it wasn't even that she bought a broom for the team's Seeker, she bought it for Harry Potter specifically. If I'm paying tuition to Hogwarts, I don't want it to be used buying prezzies for some kid so he can better break the rules. And no matter what Dumbledore says, and even if it were a team broom and not just Harry's, it's still wrong to use the school's money to buy a shiny new broomstick for only one team's Seeker. No, I don't think McGonagall used the school's money. She may be an old softie, but I don't see her as blatantly unfair as this. Besides, Snape wouldn't have let her get away with it. He'd have been demanding a new broom for his Seeker, too. OTOH, I agree with Zoe Hooch that either McGonagall or the she and the other teachers could have pooled their own money to buy the broom. I imagine that to most adults who were alive at the time of Voldemort's reign, Harry is something like a son - it takes a village, yada yada, and everyone feels some gratitude to him. --Anna From uncmark at yahoo.com Wed Mar 27 04:00:11 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 04:00:11 -0000 Subject: Gringotts, Harry's gold and broomsticks (Was Nimbus 2000) In-Reply-To: <001501c1d53d$4392cca0$82a4520c@s0023817978> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37011 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Concerning Harry's Nimbus 2000 In HPforGrownups at y..., Gretchen wrote: > This small detail has been nagging at me for a few years now. > Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? We know that > McGonagall "sent" it to Harry, but who paid for it? "CARRIE MUNGAI" wrote: > It seems obvious that Prof. McGonagall, recognizing Harry's talent > at flying and wanting to maximize her houses' chance at the > Quidditch Cup, uses a portion of her houses' allotment of the > budget to aquire a Nimbus 2000. Spottydog Uncmark wrote: > So a first year student gets special dispensation to fly AND house > funds to buy a state of the art flying broom? I realize the > Potterverse is not america, but I think they do have the concepts of > Conflict of Interest, favoritism, and misuse of funds. > > Considering Lucius Malfoy is on the Board of Governor's in books 1 & 2, if McGonagall had used house funds for Harry's broom, she would > soon have to justify her actions before the board. She would at > least have her position at risk, almost certainly losing the Head > of House position and possibly her teaching credentials. > Considering Malfoy's connections, she might be accused of > embezzlement and who knows what kind of accusations a Death Eater could think up. > "CARRIE MUNGAI" wrote:> > In defense of my position, teachers are allowed input into the > use of funds for school equipment. As long as Dumbledore approved, > there is no conflict of interest and no embezzlement. And I doubt > very seriously that this happened without Dumbledore's knowledge > and complete approval. The other heads of houses can choose to > spend their funds as they see fit. I don't see how Mr. Malfoy could > object considering he gave 7 new Nimbus 2001 to the Slytherin team. > Perhaps Snape just spent his house's funds on other equipment, and > McGonigall, who strikes me as being pretty shrewd, had been saving > for just such a possibility. It's not that far-fetched, considering > the other plot-lines. As an example, when researchers are given a > grant, they spend the money to further their field and give an > accounting to the board of governors not, necessarily, to the > endowing party. Malfoy bought the Sltherin brroms with his PERSONAL funds. No matter that the book is called 'Harry Potter' spending house funds on a personal broom for one student would be like a school's entire athletic budget on a $5000 shoes for one member of the team. Uncmark From boggles at earthlink.net Wed Mar 27 04:04:52 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:04:52 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Creation of the Term "Put Outer" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37012 At 1:02 PM +0000 3/26/02, heiditandy wrote: > >It is a clunky name - sort of the thing that when people name things >in that manner in fanfiction, I generally am less interested in the >story because it's not JKR-ian in its creativity with creating and >naming magics. Oh, dear. Am I the _only_ one who was delightfully tickled by the play on "lighter"? :( -- - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon boggles at earthlink.net === Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 === GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+ c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+ ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U! From catlady at wicca.net Wed Mar 27 04:27:19 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 04:27:19 -0000 Subject: The Creation of the Term "Put Outer" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37013 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jennifer Boggess Ramon wrote: > Oh, dear. Am I the _only_ one who was delightfully tickled by the > play on "lighter"? :( I didn't find it to be a delightful play on 'lighter'. Perhaps I would have done if it had been named 'darker'. Perhaps I would have done if I were able to stop pronouncing Put-Outer as Putter-Out. But someone on this list ingeniously suggested that the name has a double meaning, 'put out' as in 'put out the lights' and 'put out' as in 'put out the hors d'ouevres', and what it puts out in the latter sense are those orange glows that have been suggested to be spells guarding or watching Harry. From dicentra at xmission.com Wed Mar 27 04:43:31 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 04:43:31 -0000 Subject: Relative evil of Voldemort & The One Ring (was: Re: Death and Justice) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37014 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., John Walton wrote: > talondg wrote: > > > > The Gollum -> Wormtail analogy falls down on this point. Gollum is > > swept along under the influence of the Ring. He resists from time to > > time, but the Ring is stronger than him, and ultimately lays claim to > > him. > > Hang on. Surely Lord Voldemort is just as evil as the Ring in > _The_Lord_of_the_Rings_. A case could certainly be made, using examples of > Wormtail's snivelling and wimpiness, that Wormtail is at least as "swept > along" as Gollum. Moreover, the Ring is an impersonal object, though it does > involve Sauron; however, one cannot see Sauron when one is not wearing it. > In comparison, and particularly during Voldemort's reign, and to an extent > in the GOF-and-beyond of canon, Wormtail is under the control of Voldemort > as much as Quirrell ever was. I don't know about that. What compelled Pettigrew to go find Voldemort after the Shack incident? He didn't have to, you know. He could have gone back into hiding or run off to Siberia (skirting Albania, of course). The compulsion metaphor in the Potterverse is the Imperio curse, and there's no way Voldemort could have cast that spell on Peter while he was unable to hold a wand. There isn't any indication that Voldemort can compel people the way the Ring can. No, Quirrell fell under Voldemort's control when Voldemort was able to physically possess him, or at least when he was in close proximity to him, and I doubt Quirrell went kicking and screaming. Voldemort entices people with increased power (which he actually gives them) and people choose or reject it. Yikes! I just thought of something. What if the time comes when Harry needs some extra power to save his friends and Voldemort or a DE is there to give it to him and he's sorely tempted to accept that power "for a good cause"? Could this fall under "doing what's right instead of doing what's easy"? It's a classic temptation. --Dicentra, who neatly steers clear of the N word, thereby perpetuating the discussion From chynarose8 at hotmail.com Wed Mar 27 00:24:13 2002 From: chynarose8 at hotmail.com (Michelle Strauss) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:24:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] If you were Headmaster of Hogwarts... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37015 Bill had brought up a line of thought by saying: >>I am curious if anybody else has thought about what they would have Harry learn if they were Headmaster of Hogwarts. I think that we can take it as a given that at some point, probably in his seventh year, Haryy will face Voldemort, probably alone, and only one of them (at most) will be still alive after that. If that is the case, then I would think that it is ESSENTIAL that Harry be given far more preparation than he is getting now.<< And I am throwing in my two knuts. If I was the headmaster, and it were up to me to prepare Harry for the Final Battle, one of the first things I'd do is pull him from the general population. Once Harry has been academiclly isolated and insolated from such concerns as house rivalry, I'd start him on an intensive course load that would cover all areas of knowledge that he might need. Divination would go; no question about that. Astronomy and History would be modified and reduced in time spent learning it. I'd stick with the more physical aspect of astronomy, such as that which sailors would use before the advent of the GPS. History would detail dark wizards/witches and what caused their downfall. All the other core classes will stay, although they would have a consentraited ciriculm. Physical self-defence, basic geogrophy, wilderness survival, basic first aid, a small bit of forgin language, and a class on how to use a sword would be added. Summer vacation, and Christmas break would be gone; the intensity of the program would allow for little free time. And because it's me, I'd toss in a bit of yoga/Eastern religion because I feel that he would need the disiplin of meditation and he could use the spritual boost. But that's just me. @---<-- Chyna Rose _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From lterrellgiii at icqmail.com Wed Mar 27 02:55:56 2002 From: lterrellgiii at icqmail.com (L. Terrell Gould, III) Date: 26 Mar 2002 18:55:56 -0800 Subject: More Harry as Saviour Message-ID: <20020327025556.22666.cpmta@c012.snv.cp.net> No: HPFGUIDX 37016 An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From brenna_britton at hotmail.com Wed Mar 27 03:09:34 2002 From: brenna_britton at hotmail.com (brenna_britton) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 03:09:34 -0000 Subject: Questions about MoM Political and Legal Systems Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37017 Hello! I haven't posted here before, but I've been lurking for quite a while. My roommate has been plagued with anxiety about the political and legal structure of the MoM, and she's quite frankly terrified of the wizarding world. I thought that you guys might have some insight :) It's probably easiest just to pose a series of questions, so here goes Is the MoM the overarching political authority in the British wizarding world? If it is, then who appoints the Minister for Magic? Do the heads of various departments vote for it? Who appoints the department heads? Are there any wizarding elections? Does Fudge have dictatorial power? And would that mean that Dumbledore is willing to lead an anti-establishment revolution if Fudge refuses to recognize Voldemort's return? Is the MoM affiliated somehow with the Muggle government? Or do they only communicate on a need-to-know basis, as with Sirius? How many Muggle officials know about the wizarding world, or are they all subjected to Memory Charms? And need I ask how unethical Memory Charms are? (I honestly feel very sorry for Mr Roberts, the campsite manager. Has anyone studied the long-term medical effects of repeated Obliviation?) Is there an ethics board of the MoM? The Dementors aren't exactly representative of a democratic and humane society There also seems to be a complete lack of lawyers in the wizarding world, not to mention legal aid. Poor Hagrid has to rely on a ( albeit very smart) 13-year old girl for legal help with Buckbeak, and is then forced to plead his own case. And what happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Hagrid is hauled of to Azkaban without any preface, Harry receives an expulsion threat for magic that Dobby did, and Fudge doubts Harry because of a tabloid article! Are there any legal assurances for citizens, say, to prevent Dementors from kissing innocent students? Speaking of which, considering that we live in a society that questions the morality of the death penalty, why on earth are wizards subjected to a fate *worse* than death: the Dementor's kiss? These are the questions that have been haunting my roommate, as best as I can discern them from her anguished ranting. If anyone has any answers, ideas, conspiracy theories, or more questions, I'd love to hear them. Thanks a lot! Brenna (and Sarah) From william.truderung at sympatico.ca Wed Mar 27 06:01:17 2002 From: william.truderung at sympatico.ca (mongo62aa) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 06:01:17 -0000 Subject: If you were Headmaster of Hogwarts... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37018 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Michelle Strauss" wrote: > And I am throwing in my two knuts. If I was the headmaster, and it were up to me to prepare Harry for the Final Battle, one of the first things I'd do is pull him from the general population. Once Harry has been academiclly isolated and insolated from such concerns as house rivalry, I'd start him on an intensive course load that would cover all areas of knowledge that he might need. Divination would go; no question about that. Astronomy and History would be modified and reduced in time spent learning it. I'd stick with the more physical aspect of astronomy, such as that which sailors would use before the advent of the GPS. History would detail dark wizards/witches and what caused their downfall. All the other core classes will stay, although they would have a consentraited ciriculm. Physical self-defence, basic geogrophy, wilderness survival, basic first aid, a small bit of forgin language, and a class on how to use a sword would be added. Summer vacation, and Christmas break would be gone; the intensity of the program would allow for little free time. And because it's me, I'd toss in a bit of yoga/Eastern religion because I feel that he would need the disiplin of meditation and he could use the spritual boost. < I had been thinking that he could serve a sort of 'apprenticeship' during the summers. Perhaps a summer working with Bill Weasley, breaking curses and battling various magical monsters? The threat levels would not be nearly as high as they would be facing Voldemort, but he would still get valuable experience of fighting in a hostile environment. I agree about the yoga/meditation. Good for spiritual discipline, and possibly enhancing magical power/control. Bill From aiz24 at hotmail.com Wed Mar 27 07:24:50 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 02:24:50 -0500 Subject: Wormtail's fault - Life-debt - Muggle house - Christ figures Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37019 Grey Wolf wrote: >V only needed the help of _ANY_ DE to return. Wormtail was available, but >in less than three months, so would have been Crouch Jr. So, in fact, >Wormtail only made the return of V a little faster, and in reality not even >that, since they had to wait until after the quidditch cup, and by then V >had already contacted Crouch Jr. Crouch Jr. couldn't have been freed from his father's Imperius Curse if Voldemort hadn't returned to England, and he could only return to England thanks to Wormtail. No, if Wormtail does bring about something good--and I suspect he will, lest Dumbledore be proven wrong about the life-debt--it will have to be weighed in the balance with the terrible damage he's done by rescuing Voldemort from the oblivion of bodilessness. (That damage already includes the deaths of four people--five, if you count Crouch Jr.) But this all arose from Dave asking: >I must say that I really, *really* cannot see >how JKR is going to make Harry grateful that he saved Wormtail's >life. Say even if W rescues Harry, or Ron, or someone else from >V -- But V would never have come back and put whoever in the position >of needing to be saved in the first place if it hadn't been for W. >So I really can't see Harry feeling grateful for it under any >circumstances. Can any of you think of any? How about a different take altogether? Harry will be glad he saved Wormtail not because Wormtail ever does anything to bring about Voldemort's downfall and/or Harry's rescue (though, as stated above, I think he will), but for the same reason Harry gave for saving him from Remus's & sirius's wrath: he thinks his father wouldn't have wanted them (him) to be killers. He stood up for mercy of a kind, modeling himself after what he imagines his father to have been like, and that decision is crucial to the development of his own soul. Imagine, instead, the development of a Harry who had allowed a man who had begged him for mercy to be killed before his eyes. Finwitch wrote: >If Dobby was house-elf to the Potter-house that was *exploded* by Evil >Voldemort, To which Catlady responded: >Except that the house that was exploded was a Muggle house. ? explain? LTG, 3, wrote: >Lord Voldemort was regenerated (reborn) because of the BLOOD of his foe >(amongst other wonderful ingredients).... HARRY! Another nod towards Harry >being a Christ figure? Indubitably, IMO. So is Lily, with her salvific, sacrificial love . . . So, what do you think? Will Harry die and live again? And what about Voldemort--is *he* a Christ figure? He has the resurrection if not the self-sacrifice. Very appropriate musings for Holy Week. Amy Z -------------------------------------------------- "Very haunted up here, isn't it?" said Ron, with the air of one commenting on the weather. -HP and the Prisoner of Azkaban -------------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From uncmark at yahoo.com Wed Mar 27 07:12:25 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 07:12:25 -0000 Subject: If you were Headmaster of Hogwarts... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37020 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Michelle Strauss" wrote: > And I am throwing in my two knuts. If I was the headmaster, and it > were up to me to prepare Harry for the Final Battle, one of the > first things I'd do is pull him from the general population. Once > Harry has been academiclly isolated and insolated from such > concerns as house rivalry, I'd start him on an intensive course > load that would cover all areas of knowledge that he might need. > Summer vacation, and Christmas break would be gone; the intensity > of the program would allow for little free time. And because it's > me, I'd toss in a bit of yoga/Eastern religion because I feel that > he would need the disiplin of meditation and he could use the > spritual boost. Excuse me, Michelle. but that's probably a good reason why you're not headmaster. In Sorceror's Stone, Dumbledore made it a point that Harry be raised apart from the magical world 'where he was famous for something he couldn't remember'. Harry only survived his fame so far due to the companionship of Gryffyndor and friendship of Ron and Hermione. And remember, he's still only a 15 year-old who hasn't even has his first kiss yet. When separated by his friends in PofA he very nearly ran away after blowing up his aunt. Harry needs his friends to keep up with the stress of the stress of being the 'Famous Harry Potter'. Idon't buy that the great battle will be 1 on 1 either. I foresee a great battle with Ron, Hermione, Sirius, Dumbledore, and even Ginny, Neville, & Malfoy in starring roles. There's still THREE books in the series and a LOT to happen. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mongo62aa" wrote: > I had been thinking that he could serve a sort of 'apprenticeship' > during the summers. Perhaps a summer working with Bill Weasley, > breaking curses and battling various magical monsters? The threat > levels would not be nearly as high as they would be facing > Voldemort, but he would still get valuable experience of fighting > in a hostile environment. I agree about the yoga/meditation. Good > for spiritual discipline, and possibly enhancing magical > power/control. I was considering a summer session for an attempt at fan fiction. Hermione or possibly Harry might be there for prefect's training. Neville could be doing a Herbology internship or all the characters could be present for intensive training in Transfiguration or Potions. McGonagall was dead on reminding the students that OWL's were only a year off. Harry and Ron might come for a Quidditch Camp at Hogwart's and Krum might be present. (Fred, George, & Angelina all graduated at the end of GoF and Gryffindor has 3 blank spots on their team) I don't see Harry being set apart. I don't buy that he is destined for death at the age of Book 7. From JKR's comments it would be like killing a part of herself. If I had been headmaster, I would have cut off Slytherin at the end of ChoS and got rid of Snape, but that's probably why I'm not Headmaster. Uncmark From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Mar 27 10:08:32 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:08:32 -0000 Subject: If you were Headmaster of Hogwarts... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37021 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mongo62aa" wrote: > I am curious if anybody else has thought about what they would have > Harry learn if they were Headmaster of Hogwarts. I think that we can > take it as a given that at some point, probably in his seventh year, > Haryy will face Voldemort, probably alone, and only one of them (at > most) will be still alive after that. If that is the case, then I > would think that it is ESSENTIAL that Harry be given far more > preparation than he is getting now. I am a student (for a few years more, at least) and, as all students I've ever known, I have, at some point or another, asked myself "Why do I have to learn such-and-such class? What possible use will I find for it?" (for example: I'm studying Computer Science. Why do I have to learn Management Accounting?). The fact is, you sometimes need to learn things because you may *need* them, but more importantly because you need to learn *how to learn*. Harry will face Voldemort at some point in the future. D'dore doesn't know the circumstances, and he's giving Harry the broadest possible education to cover all possibilities. With that base, Harry will be able to improvise, adapt and learn how to beat whatever he faces. Unlike computers, the world is not a case of "if the red light blinks, push button A. If the red light goes steady, push buttom B, etc.". Harry will face the unknown, and he will need the capability of learning much more knowledge itself (although a few curses will probably come handy anyway). > So what would I do? First of all, eliminate all of the nonessential > classes that Harry is currently taking, in order to free up time for > more useful studies. History of Magic: drop it. As I stated above, I do not see classes as non-esential. "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" the saying goes (at least in my language). Maybe the teacher is not as good as he could be, but Harry is learning about great magical battles and international relations and who-knows-what. Voldemort will not be defeted (I hope) by a who's-the-fastest-shooter competition of AK between Harry and him. Instead, he will be defeated by careful planning and strategy. If that is so, I hope both Harry and Ron are paying careful attention to the great planners of old (from Alexander the Great to Napoleon and beyond, or their wizard equivalents; say what you will about their methods -I often do-, but they were VERY effective). > Divination: drop it. Astronomy: drop it. I'm not sure what the difference is between this two, but nonetheless it must be important for wizarding, especially the second one. The first one was choosed by Harry, and it's still his choice to keep it or drop it. Why astronomy is important should be discussed further, but I'm not going to pile it on top of this discussion. > Herbology, and Care of Magical Creatures: > there is some useful material here, but not enough to justify the > time spent, in my opinion. Drop both of them. Both of them have proven enormously useful over the books (remedies against stoning, helping Buckbeack(sp?)-Sirius, etc. I believe a major weapon against any wizard is bubotubors, when thrown to his hands: he wont be able to hold a wand, uch less use it, and takes hours to recover. Resuming, I would leave them as they are. < Snip Potions, Transformation, etc. which I agree with> > In addition, I would add > several new classes. Muggle Martial Arts: these would be useful in > themselves if Harry loses his wand at some point, and also help Harry > with his physical stamina, strength, speed, etc. as well as his > mental toughness and discipline. Physical Training: taken in > conjunction with Muggle Martial Arts to improve Harry's physical > condition. This may well be part of Auror training, rather than a > separate class. Appart from the fact that the flying lessons are some sort of physical training, I don't see canon-wise the introduction of that sort of lessons. Wizards dislike and mistrust muggle methods, and specialy any sort of physical contact during a fight. I don't think it would be useful anyway (at any rate, not more useful than flying lessons) > However, all of this training would not be enough to beat Voldemort, > who would remain much older and more experienced. I would also teach > Harry as much as possible of the 'Old Magic,' whatever that is. It > is apparently very powerful, and difficult for Voldemort to break. > Most important of all, I would have Harry learn some 'New Magic,' by > which I mean magic specially developed for Harry, and which Voldemort > cannot know how to counter. I suspect that Hermione would play an > important role in this. Ron, also, would play a role, developing > strategies and tactics to deliver that 'New Magic' while keeping > Harry alive. > > If anybody has comments, I would love to hear them. > > Bill Old magic seems defensive in nature, and looks like it takes quite some time to use, so it has little use in outright battle. As the rest (the new spells and strategy), that's exactly wht I mean: to create them, you need ideas, and for those ideas you'd better heve been tought history et al. since Ron, Hermione and Harry haven't the time to repeat every though any wizard has ever had. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Mar 27 10:21:53 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:21:53 -0000 Subject: If you were Headmaster of Hogwarts... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37022 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Michelle Strauss" wrote: And I am throwing in my two knuts. If I was the headmaster, and it were up to me to prepare Harry for the Final Battle, one of the first things to do is pull him from the general population. Once Harry has been academiclly isolated and insolated from such concerns as house rivalry, I'd start him on an intensive course load that would cover all areas of knowledge that he might need. Summer vacation, and Christmas break would be gone; the intensity of the program would allow for little free time. And because it's me, I'd toss in a bit of yoga/Eastern religion because I feel that he would need the disiplin of meditation and he could use the spritual boost. > > But that's just me. > @---<-- Chyna Rose ------------ This is spooky! Such a training would, form my point of view, render Harry totally useless. People (specially students) need time off: not just evenings off, but days off (1 or 2 a week), weeks off (one every 3 or 4 months), and months off (2 or 3 every year). If you force any 11 year old to study without friends (isolation) or competitors, and take away all possible fun, he will be reduced to a lunatic by the time he's 18. This may seem a bit extreme, but the fact is that several studies have demonstrated that the efficiency at learning decreases exponencially from the last holiday, as children and adolescents (teenagers) become ever more weary of studying. The only way to combat it is giving them free time to play, and the occasional (extra) day off. I know this is true, I can feel how it grows increasingly difficult to pay attention in class and to concentrate as the weeks pass without free days. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From william.truderung at sympatico.ca Wed Mar 27 10:42:25 2002 From: william.truderung at sympatico.ca (mongo62aa) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:42:25 -0000 Subject: If you were Headmaster of Hogwarts... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37023 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > I am a student (for a few years more, at least) and, as all students I've ever known, I have, at some point or another, asked myself "Why do I have to learn such-and-such class? What possible use will I find for it?" (for example: I'm studying Computer Science. Why do I have to learn Management Accounting?). The fact is, you sometimes need to learn things because you may *need* them, but more importantly because you need to learn *how to learn*. Harry will face Voldemort at some point in the future. D'dore doesn't know the circumstances, and he's giving Harry the broadest possible education to cover all possibilities. With that base, Harry will be able to improvise, adapt and learn how to beat whatever he faces. Unlike computers, the world is not a case of "if the red light blinks, push button A. If the red light goes steady, push buttom B, etc.". Harry will face the unknown, and he will need the capability of learning much more knowledge itself (although a few curses will probably come handy anyway). As I stated above, I do not see classes as non-esential. "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" the saying goes (at least in my language). Maybe the teacher is not as good as he could be, but Harry is learning about great magical battles and international relations and who-knows-what. Voldemort will not be defeted (I hope) by a who's-the-fastest-shooter competition of AK between Harry and him. Instead, he will be defeated by careful planning and strategy. If that is so, I hope both Harry and Ron are paying careful attention to the great planners of old (from Alexander the Great to Napoleon and beyond, or their wizard equivalents; say what you will about their methods -I often do-, but they were VERY effective). Old magic seems defensive in nature, and looks like it takes quite some time to use, so it has little use in outright battle. As the rest (the new spells and strategy), that's exactly wht I mean: to create them, you need ideas, and for those ideas you'd better heve been tought history et al. since Ron, Hermione and Harry haven't the time to repeat every though any wizard has ever had. < You know, under more normal circumstances, I would agree with you. My proposed curriculum is VERY unbalanced, and leaves Harry ill- prepared to deal with life after Hogwarts. But Harry has to be ALIVE in order to deal with post-Hogwarts life. From a story-internal point of view, it looks very possible that Harry and Voldemort will indeed face each other mano-a-mano, where dueling skills will decide who lives and who dies. Sure, he will need a lot of help to get that far, hence the importance of Ron and Hermione, but at the end of the day, Harry's dueling skills look likely to be the deciding factor in the war. Remember, it is not just Harry, but the entire magic community that is depending on Harry's fighting ability. Sure, my proposed curriculum is unfair to Harry, but this IS war. Bill From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Mar 27 11:13:25 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:13:25 -0000 Subject: If you were Headmaster of Hogwarts... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37024 Bill wrote: > You know, under more normal circumstances, I would agree with you. > My proposed curriculum is VERY unbalanced, and leaves Harry ill- > prepared to deal with life after Hogwarts. But Harry has to be ALIVE > in order to deal with post-Hogwarts life. From a story-internal > point of view, it looks very possible that Harry and Voldemort will > indeed face each other mano-a-mano, where dueling skills will decide > who lives and who dies. Sure, he will need a lot of help to get that > far, hence the importance of Ron and Hermione, but at the end of the > day, Harry's dueling skills look likely to be the deciding factor in > the war. Remember, it is not just Harry, but the entire magic > community that is depending on Harry's fighting ability. Sure, my > proposed curriculum is unfair to Harry, but this IS war. > > Bill I understand your position, although I do not agree with it. You seem to sugest that Harry needs all that preparation to survive the attack of Voldemort. Ever read Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game"? It 's a short story about a very similar situation. I like the story, although it's somewhat cruel, and reflects your views exactly. However, I know (and I think you do, as well) that events will prove me right and that Harry will be able to win with the education he's receiving right now, without any need of special circumstances. The only room for discussion is whether he'll survive the fight and, if he doesn't, if he would have been able to survive if he had received the education. The trouble is, if the only way to survive is to receive an education which will mean he's social death as soon as his work is over, I don't know which would be worse. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From william.truderung at sympatico.ca Wed Mar 27 11:45:32 2002 From: william.truderung at sympatico.ca (mongo62aa) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:45:32 -0000 Subject: If you were Headmaster of Hogwarts... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37025 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > However, I know (and I think you do, as well) that events will prove me right and that Harry will be able to win with the education he's receiving right now, without any need of special circumstances. The only room for discussion is whether he'll survive the fight and, if he doesn't, if he would have been able to survive if he had received the education. The trouble is, if the only way to survive is to receive an education which will mean he's social death as soon as his work is over, I don't know which would be worse. < Well, yes, on a story-external basis we know that Voldemort will be defeated. But the characters within the story do not know that. Given the threat of Voldemort gaining power, any significant increase in the probability of Harry defeating Voldemort would be worth wrecking Harry's post-Hogwarts social life. This sounds harsh...it IS harsh. But in this kind of war, to fail to do this in order to protect the general magic community would be irresponsible. In addition, I don't know that the effects of this curriculum would be all that bad. He would still have his friends, after all--and it's not as if the regular curriculum was all that great either. Just how much daily use would he have gotten from Divination or Astronomy, anyways? I suspect that learning Meditation more than makes up for the loss. In my curriculum, he is still in Gryffindor tower, taking DADA, Potions, Transfiguration, and Charms with his friends, so he is not totally isolated. Bill From Whirdy at aol.com Wed Mar 27 12:16:44 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 07:16:44 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE:Death and Justice (Was: Re: Do people like SYCOPHANTS?) Message-ID: <4f.1ad75217.29d3122c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37026 In a message dated 3/26/02 12:06:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, finwitch at yahoo.com writes: > The matter about Sirius Black/Remus Lupin killing Pettigrew... I > would have wanted to stop them -- to say: "Are you grazy? How are you > EVER going to clear Sirius' name if you actually DO murder > Pettigrew?" They need to imprison him, not kill him. Too bad the rat > managed to escape! Oh well, maybe we will get Sirius free - > eventually. > If they did do the AK curse, good old Habeas Corpus prevails. Wormtail in perfect health, except he is dead. Even Fudge couldn't fudge on that. Of course, the GoF would also suffer, not to mention Snape's perfectly paranoid Potter reaction at the end of PoA. whirdy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at aol.com Wed Mar 27 12:24:54 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 07:24:54 EST Subject: Wormtail/Privet Drive & Put-Outer Message-ID: <165.ab90136.29d31416@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37027 Re-send (ever so slightly revised) of a post sent Monday that appears to have been lost in cyberspace: DG wrote: ??????Consider this: the direct result of Harry's choice to spare Wormtail ??????was the death of the Ripple house caretaker, Bertha Jorkins, Crouch ??????Sr, and Cedric Diggory - at least, so far. Is there any doubt that ???????there will be more deaths? ??????Killing Wormtail in the shack would not have been murder. It would ??????have been self-defense and a healthy dose of justice. True, but Harry was a 13-year-old wizard under stress without an appetite for murder. ?It would have been astonishing for him to recognize the justice of killing Pettigrew under the circumstances, and it would not have been in Harry's character to kill him for revenge. ?Besides, Sirius and Lupin agreed to support Harry's decision, giving him "permission" to let him go. Cindy regarding the function of the Put-Outer on the 12 street lamps : ??????If you think about it, there really isn't much of a compelling reason ??????for Dumbledore to extinguish the lights in the first place, IMO.? The ??????street is deserted, and it is the middle of the night.? When ??????Dumbledore extinguishes the lights, he doesn't yet know that Hagrid ??????will show up in a fashion (on a flying motorcycle) that might ??????generate curiosity among the muggles.? Also, if Dumbledore wishes for ??????darkness, he really doesn't have to extinguish 12 street lamps, does ??????he?? Two or four, perhaps, but extinguishing 12 lamps seems like far ??????more than necessary to darken the Dursleys' home.? Had a neighbor woken up in the middle of the night and looked outside his bedroom window, he might have seen two wizards in full regalia and a half-giant with a baby (who will soon be known to all the neighbors to have taken up residence at the Dursleys'). ?I think that's reason enough to extinguish the lamps. ?Extinguishing 12 lights makes it look like there's a momentary problem with the street lights on Privet Drive rather than a mysterious blackness around the Dursley home. ? ? ? ? A surveillance device that lets the good wizards know everything ??????that is happening on Privet Drive.? This works a lot better, I ??????think.? We certainly know that MoM instantly knows about all magic ??????that happens on Privet Drive, based on their response to Dobby's ??????magic and Aunt Marge (and we know they don't react instantly to magic ??????other underage wizards perform).? We know that Hagrid or Dumbledore ??????knows that Harry isn't receiving his letters, that he is moved from ??????the cupboard to the bedroom, and that the Dursleys flee.? Maybe each ??????of the 12 street lamp is a separate surveillance device, perhaps ??????sending different types of information (magic usage, communication ??????monitoring, visual image) to different recipients (one for MoM, one ??????for Dumbledore, one for Mrs. Figg, etc.) Hmm . . . I think the surveillance idea is interesting but I can't reconcile it with the fact that Dobby's magic caused a Ministry employee to send the most ill-timed letter to Harry at the Dursleys, while the Muggle Masons were still in attendance. ? Surely if they had all this surveillance they would have noticed the Masons' presence? ?And if the Improper Use of Magic Office needed a special surveillance device to notice the magic at Privet Drive, that would mean the restriction on magic outside of school is basically completely unenforceable except against select targets in select places. So I doubt that the street lamps were necessary to detect magic at Privet Drive. ?And if they weren't necessary to detect magic, I'm not convinced why they were necessary to detect visual images, etc. ?I'm afraid the theory sounds to me to be too much like a bugging device out of a Muggle spy movie. ??????Maybe the answer is that Harry is safe when he is in ??????the presence of his relations, which several people have already ??????proposed as part of Harry's protection.? I tend to think that the entirety of Harry's protection resides in the Dursleys themselves, and that the letter from Dumbledore told them in no uncertain terms, and on pain of consequences that the Dursleys would have thought horrific, that they were not to leave Harry under any circumstances except with Mrs. Figg (and I bet her house is Unplottable). ?I can't imagine any other reason on earth the Dursleys would have been willing to take an eleven-year-old Harry to Dudley's party rather than just leave him at home. ?But this means I haven't found any purpose for those twelve balls of fire Dumbledore sends with the Put-Outer, unless he was using the Put-Outer to cast the protective spell. ?After all, he never takes out a wand while he's there and there's no evidence he was there earlier to do it (McGonagall has been watching the house all day). ?And he can't possibly have left Harry there without the protection in place. ?Is it possible that Dumbledore's wand was concealed in the Put-Outer, or that the wand was transfigured into a cigarette lighter, just in case something went wrong? ??????Had Dudley gone to Smeltings and Harry gone to ??????a different muggle school, that protection might not have existed.? ??????It might be a good thing that the wizarding world spirited Harry away ??????to Hogwarts when they did. The protection would indeed have been gone, and no doubt Dumbledore & Co. knew it, and would have taken any means necessary to get Harry to Hogwarts. ?Come to think of it, though, Harry had a few perilous moments at King's Cross station after Vernon left him there, till the Weasleys turned up. ?By forgetting to tell Harry how to cross the barrier at King's Cross (I'm assuming it was Hagrid's job), Hagrid could have caused Harry's downfall had the baddies been alert. ?Lucius could have snatched him up, if he was there seeing Draco off. Debbie, not willing to label Hagrid a coward, being content with "reckless" and "incompetent" [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Mar 27 09:14:46 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:14:46 -0000 Subject: Gringotts, Harry's gold and broomsticks (Was Nimbus 2000) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37028 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" wrote: > Malfoy bought the Sltherin brroms with his PERSONAL funds. No matter > that the book is called 'Harry Potter' spending house funds on a > personal broom for one student would be like a school's entire > athletic budget on a $5000 shoes for one member of the team. Well - I heard that teachers made a collection for it. Harry obviously had *talent* for it, and he *was* chosen for the team immediately (because Gryffindor House team lacked one). Besides, the *other* members already had brooms. And Seeker needs a good one since speed, quick turns etc. are essetial. All in all, rules *can* be bended... but it *is* better to discuss it first. Maybe McGonagall was trying to tell Harry that if he needed to break rules, it might be a good idea to ally with a teacher so it'll be done more smoothly... And well - since Lucius Malfoy was willing to finance brooms for the *entire* team, why would Snape argue? He can always use his share of the budget for something else. "Finwitch" From plumeski at yahoo.com Wed Mar 27 13:28:09 2002 From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:28:09 -0000 Subject: Questions about MoM Political and Legal Systems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37029 "brenna_britton" wrote: Your questions have never been answered or even addressed in canon (or even, AFAIK, out of canon by JKR), so we're down to pure speculation... > Is the MoM the overarching political authority in the British > wizarding world? It would appear to be. > If it is, then who appoints the Minister for Magic? Do the heads of > various departments vote for it? Who appoints the department heads? > Are there any wizarding elections? I'd expect that there's some kind of electoral process (does thios mean that there are wizarding taxes as well?). Whether the whole community, or just the heads of department vote for the Minister is anyone's guess. My assumption is that the heads get promoted from within (presumably this would mean that with Crouch gone, Percy is now in charge of International Co-operation). > Does Fudge have dictatorial power? And would that mean that > Dumbledore is willing to lead an anti-establishment revolution if > Fudge refuses to recognize Voldemort's return? I get the impression that a lot of the wizarding community share Fudge's ostrich-like propensities, and prefer to ignore rather than confront any problems which might appear. I don't expect Dumbledore to mount any kind of challenge to Fudge's political authority - for starters, it holds no interest for our dear headmaster. Dumbledore would obviously prefer to do what needs to be done in partnership with the Ministry, but is prepared to go it alone and deal with possible confrontations only if they arise. > Is the MoM affiliated somehow with the Muggle government? That's the big question which has preoccupied my mind for a while.:-) Knowing how the UK government works in some detail (both technically and in practice), the text sends me two conflicting signals: In usual (Muggle) British terminology, a Ministry is a sub-set of a Department of State, and not vice-versa as the MoM is. So, for instance, we have the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (run by a Secretary of State, commonly and slightly misleadingly called a Minister), which has several Ministries, including Sport and Arts. Ministries can be sub-divided into Divisions, each of which is usually run by a career Civil Servant with some kind of relevant expertise, rather than by a Member of Parliament. It should be noted that Departments are separated by spending powers, rather than function (for instance, the DCMS I used as an example has a lot of interaction for obvious reasons with the Department for Education and Skills). The MoM could be a part of several Departments, but as it would appear the MoM is self-financing (and something the Muggle government doesn't want people to know about), it's probably not part of the general political system. On the other hand, the usage (Ministry *OF* Magic - Muggle terminology would make it the Ministry *FOR* Magic) would indicate that the MoM has evolved separately from the rest of the political system, and as it's self-financing, there is no reason for it to have any formal ties with the government of the day. Of course, as the wizarding world has to co-exist in the same space as tghe rest of us, and some things require a certain degree of co-operation. For instance, hosting the Quidditch World Cup here would require co- operation with several government departments - this is a teritorially tiny country and having several hundred thousand people in the same place would be impossible to organise on any level without being noticed. Also, National Heritage (which looks after non- privately-owned historical monuments) would need to be aware of which seemingly ruined castles not to worry about because they're in use by the wizarding community. > Or do they > only communicate on a need-to-know basis, as with Sirius? How many > Muggle officials know about the wizarding world, or are they all > subjected to Memory Charms? Depending on which of my contrasting options one wants to expect, the WW is known either only to the Prime Minister who might give orders to other Departments, or to the whole Cabinet. I wouldn't be surprised if while in office, all members of the Cabinet are made aware of the wizarding world's existence, but have memory charms put on them once they leave office. > And need I ask how unethical Memory Charms are? (I honestly feel very > sorry for Mr Roberts, the campsite manager. Has anyone studied the > long-term medical effects of repeated Obliviation?) Is there an > ethics board of the MoM? A subject which has been raised here and in other HP discussions is about ethical behaviour among wizards and witches - Hogwarts doesn't appear to have anything on the curriculum about it. Of course, stepping outside the Potterverse for a moment, considering the books are marketed at kids, the whole notion would be an unnecessary encumbrance. The wizardng world is scary and wizards just have to deal with things as best they can. > The Dementors aren't exactly representative > of a democratic and humane society There also seems to be a complete > lack of lawyers in the wizarding world, not to mention legal aid. > Poor Hagrid has to rely on a ( albeit very smart) 13-year old girl > for legal help with Buckbeak, and is then forced to plead his own > case. Quite. As I said above, neither the individuals nor the system don't seem to be able to look beyond their immediate needs. > These are the questions that have been haunting my roommate, as best > as I can discern them from her anguished ranting. If anyone has any > answers, ideas, conspiracy theories, or more questions, I'd love to > hear them. Thanks a lot! From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Mar 27 13:36:56 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:36:56 -0000 Subject: If you were Headmaster of Hogwarts... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37030 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Michelle Strauss" wrote: > And I am throwing in my two knuts. If I was the headmaster, and it were up > to me to prepare Harry for the Final Battle, one of the first things I'd do > is pull him from the general population. Once Harry has been academiclly > isolated and insolated from such concerns as house rivalry, I'd start him on > an intensive course load that would cover all areas of knowledge that he > might need. Summer vacation, > and Christmas break would be gone; the intensity of the program would allow > for little free time. And because it's me, I'd toss in a bit of yoga/Eastern > religion because I feel that he would need the disiplin of meditation and he > could use the spritual boost. And a few years down the line, Voldemort drops by and says, "Join me, Harry, I'll give you weekends off, three weeks' paid vacation every year, and tickets to the Quidditch World Cup," and Harry says, "Hell, yeah, I'm your man!" Doesn't strike me as such a good idea. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From gwynyth at drizzle.com Wed Mar 27 14:06:45 2002 From: gwynyth at drizzle.com (Jenett) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:06:45 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who bought the Nimbus? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37031 At 3:59 AM +0000 3/27/02, saintbacchus wrote: >Zoe Hooch writes: > >Um, yes it does. Imagine Lucius Malfoy (or any >parent, really) finding out that money that could >have gone towards his son's education went to buying >Harry Potter a broom. A *broom*! It's not even >important to his education! Even if the notoriously >fair-minded McGonagall would stand for that, I just >can't believe the school could get away with it. In the schools I've gone to, it's quite common for there to be *some* discretionary funds that teachers or faculty can use or apply to use for various reasons. As long as the amounts are dealt with reasonably and above-board, no one's ever had any problems with it. At the school (private day school) I currently work at, for example, there's some money that helps to buy some mid-range laptop machines that students who could not otherwise afford them can apply to use. The school doesn't have enough money to buy such things for all financial aid students - but they do have 4-6 machines or so. That's a pretty substantial cost that benefits only a small number of students - but it gets done. (We've got about 425 students) The boarding school I went to also had special funds that only benefited some students rather than everyone. Sometimes they were special gift donations, sometimes the school itself decided that it was important to have discretionary funds for certain things, and made sure the money was available. Some of this money went for things like dorm snacks every Wednesday night for dorm meetings, other treats of that kind that weren't at all academic (movie nights, etc.) The college I went to charged about $100 a student as a student activities fee - this money went into a general activities fund, and student groups were funded out of it (groups submitted a desired budget, and via a stated process and preferences, got a certain percentage of that budget to work with.) If there *is* tuition at Hogwarts, perhaps something similar occurs: a small amount of money from each student gets paid into an account that benefits the House. With enough students and over enough time, that can add up to serious money, particularly if you're not restricted (as my college organisations were) to spending it all each year or losing some in the next round of budgeting. So, there's lots of options here. Perhaps there's a House fund with funds donated by former students in each House, to be used for whatever the head of the house thinks worthwhile (which could be an extra treat, brooms for the Quidditch team, etc). Or perhaps there's a special Griffindor Quidditch fund. Who knows. Or perhaps (and note: we *don't* know if students pay tuition, after all, which removes a lot of your arguments about "Oh, Malfoy would find it so unfair...": if no one pays tuition, and there's extra money left over from the available funds there's no problem spending that extra, for example) they've simply designated some bits of the budget to house activities. We also don't know how *substantial* those funds are: it's perfectly possible, given how long Hogwarts has been around, that any such house/team funds would be *very* substantial, and that even a Nimbus 2000 would be a drop in the bucket financially. Buying a Nimbus 2000 wouldn't mean other people couldn't do things they wanted/benefit from the money in this case. (As an idle thought: do we know whether Fred and George got their brooms from their parents? I can't recall if this is explicit anywhere.) But to start by saying "Oh, spending money on anything non-academic is ethically impossible" strike me as inaccurate to the extreme, based in my own school experiences. There are certainly unethical ways to handle such situations - but there are plenty of ethical and reasonable ways to handle it as well. Canon doesn't tell us *why* it was ok - but I think there are strong indications that it *is* a reasonable thing to be doing. After all, it's delivered in public, with other teachers about - even if they didnt' see the wink, it's pretty likely other teachers might have asked her about it. If it had truly been a problem, she could surely have delivered it in private or had it left on his bed or something with a note. Or, given her personality, if it *had* really been a problem, I think she wouldn't have done it at all. The fact it happened, in that reading, indicates that what she did is perhaps unusual, but perfectly acceptable. -Jenett -- ----- gwynyth at drizzle.com ******* gleewood at gleewood.org ------ "My friend, there is a fine line between coincidence and fate" Ardeth Bay - _The Mummy Returns_ -------------------- http://gleewood.org/ -------------------- From huntleyl at mssm.org Wed Mar 27 15:09:19 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:09:19 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: If you were Headmaster of Hogwarts... References: Message-ID: <00a701c1d5a1$5ed43120$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 37032 I full-heartedly agree with those (Grey Wolf, Marina, etc) who think an intensive training program w/ no breaks and separation from the rest of society is the *last* thing Harry needs. The training program mentioned by Michelle is, IMHO, the fastest way to creating a very dangerous, very informed MONSTER. Harry *needs* his ties to the people he loves. It's because of them that he fights Voldie at all. To rip them all away from him and submerse him into a program that sounds like it's designed for a robot is not only inhumane - it's downright cruel and is likely to have very negative effects on Harry's state of mind. True, loving people creates a weakness (what if V had Ron and said, "If Harry Potter doesn't let me kill him, this one is toast."), but the positive effects of love outweigh the negative ones in Harry's case. If Harry was "fixed" enough to disregard Ron's danger for the greater good, what's to say he still cares about the greater good at all? What kind of person lets his best friend die? The same kind of person who sacrifices himself for a bunch of faceless people? I don't think so. Turning Harry into a fighting machine is pretty much counter-productive IMO, it's Harry's deep sense of love, honor, and duty that have carried him this far, and taking that away from him would likely be fatal. I'm not one to over-estimate the importance of emotions, but even I can see that the program devised by Michelle would wreck Harry completely, both as a human being and as a warrior with the ability to conquer the Dark Lord. On the other hand, giving Harry extra material to practice outside of class would be quite helpful. Remember Hermione and Ron helping him study curses and such for the third task? If I were Dumbledore, I would tell Hermione that Harry needs preparation for fighting dark wizards, and consider the matter taken care of. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Mar 27 13:31:43 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:31:43 -0000 Subject: Questions about MoM Political and Legal Systems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37033 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "brenna_britton" wrote: > And what happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Good question - I figure it to be one of the main themes in *every* book. Book#1: Snape thinks Harry "wants to be a celebrity" - couldn't be *more* wrong. Also, Harry doubts Snape about wanting to steal the stone - but finds out it was Quirrell. Book#2: Harry is blamed falsely for doing magic, and of petrifications happening around. Harry doubts Malfoy, but has learned and sets out to figure out the truth - Malfoy knew nothing. We also find that Hagrid's expellation 50 years earlier wasn't his fault at all. Book#3: Need it be said? Sirius, falsely accused of murdering a man who is still alive. Book #4: Nearly everyone believes Harry managed to plot his way into the Tournament. Karkaroff is under doubt by some who believed Harry didn't - but it wasn't him at all... Then of course, in all, we have Dursleys/Snape blaming Harry for just about everything... Mostly when Harry doesn't know he did it, or did not do it... Finwitch From editor at texas.net Wed Mar 27 15:24:24 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:24:24 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Creation of the Term "Put Outer" References: Message-ID: <009501c1d5a3$7b92fa60$417663d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 37034 Catlady wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Jennifer Boggess Ramon > wrote: > > > Oh, dear. Am I the _only_ one who was delightfully tickled by the > > play on "lighter"? :( > > I didn't find it to be a delightful play on 'lighter'. Perhaps I > would have done if it had been named 'darker'. Perhaps I would have > done if I were able to stop pronouncing Put-Outer as Putter-Out. Jennifer, don't feel alone! I liked the contrast to "lighter" too. I thought JKR probably did it on purpose, as this was what, page 2 of book 1? As new readers, we were being brought into a new world gradually, and she was still using "muggle"-flavored omniscient eyes. All of us are criticizing this term from a position of four books and many readings' familiarity with the wizarding world and its toys. Remembering my first-time read, I was delighted with the Put-Outer and wanted to see more. --Amanda From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Wed Mar 27 15:19:13 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:19:13 -0000 Subject: Peter's Flaw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37035 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > Dicentra doesn't > > have any pity for Peter as he writhes on the floor crying crocodile > > tears > > Not thinking" *that* used to be a Marauder! How far he has fallen!"? It looks to me like Peter had and still has only one flaw: fear of death. It's the reason he gives Lupin and Black for betraying the Potters. It is, IMHO, the reason he goes to find LV. It is the reason he does everything. He cuts off his hand to revive LV. He looks to LV to give him immortality, which is probably true of all the DE's. This is also LV's defining motive: to attain immortality. LV is a coward, driven by this same fear. From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Wed Mar 27 15:57:33 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:57:33 -0000 Subject: Questions about MoM Political and Legal Systems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37036 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "brenna_britton" > Is the MoM the overarching political authority in the British > wizarding world? It would seem so. > If it is, then who appoints the Minister for Magic? Do the heads of > various departments vote for it? Who appoints the department heads? > Are there any wizarding elections? > > Does Fudge have dictatorial power? And would that mean that > Dumbledore is willing to lead an anti-establishment revolution if > Fudge refuses to recognize Voldemort's return? > > Is the MoM affiliated somehow with the Muggle government? Or do they > only communicate on a need-to-know basis, as with Sirius? How many > Muggle officials know about the wizarding world, or are they all > subjected to Memory Charms? Speculation reigns supreme here. Elections? Fudge does become Minister after "a big drop in [Crouch's] popularity." On the other hand, the language Sirius uses to describe the event "So Cornelius Fudge got the top job, and Crouch was shunted sideways into the Department of International Magical Co-operation" suggests an undemocratic process. I tend myself towards the belief that whoever is in charge (get to that later) appoints whoever is elected. So, who is in charge? The very word Ministry would suggest that the Ministry of Magic is a ministry of the British government. In that case, however, Fudge should, by all rights, be an M.P. Is there a wizarding constituency/riding in the House of Commons, and the Ministry of Magic is always given to the member for Hogsmeade (or whatever they care to call it?.) I rather like to think so. It takes care of when the elections are happening and it's rather funny. Another possibility is that Fudge really isn't a minister in the ordinary sense, but rather like a lieutenant governor, sent to govern a colony. Who knows? Well, the Muggle PM supposedly. But really? I can't help but think of the movie Men In Black every time I read Harry Potter, and vice versa.... Is it possible that the wizarding world via. Fudge can get out information without giving away their existance? But, practically, the Ministry of Magic usually functions on its own with Fudge taking the role of a cabinet's prime minister. However, it seems sure that the Department Heads are civil servants, even though they take on the roles of cabinet ministers. Furthermore, the Ministry combines the executive, the legislative, and judicial branches. > These are the questions that have been haunting my roommate, as best > as I can discern them from her anguished ranting. If anyone has any > answers, ideas, conspiracy theories, or more questions, I'd love to > hear them. Thanks a lot! Tell her that the wizarding community is corrupt and horrible. And not to be anguished by it. My mother didn't particularily like HP until she read GoF. And since then, she buttonholes people to rave on about how wonderful HP is. "The Ministry is so corrupt! And the society... UGHHH!" to the point where I think people are wondering why she's praising them so much. In her mind, it's that aspect of the stories which give them moral depth. Eileen From Ali at zymurgy.org Wed Mar 27 16:03:13 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:03:13 -0000 Subject: My favorite bit of foreshadowing In-Reply-To: <181.5b9be4d.29d19930@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37037 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > As I've said before, Dumbledore's 'I would trust Hagrid with my life' sends a > little bit of a shiver down my spine. Add to this Ron saying that Neville will play Quidditch for England before Hagrid betrays Dumbledore(sorry I can't remember where that quote comes from). Dumbledore's days are numbered! I've always thought the rumours about Neville being the next potential Griffindor Quidditch captain, were a little unlikely given the only reference we've ever had to his Quidditch ability. But if Ron really is a seer.... and the phrase did have a sort of strange resonance about it - well strange enough to stick in my mind and parcel it up with Dumbledore saying he'd trust his life to Hagrid. Ali who's really enjoying all the posts about "Death and Justice" and "Harry the Saviour", but lacks the eloquence to respond. From ladjables at yahoo.com Wed Mar 27 16:31:39 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:31:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Free Elves Unite/Harry as Saviour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020327163139.80240.qmail@web20410.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37038 --- uncmark wrote: > I've seen several postings of Dobby and Winky going > to the Weasleys, assuming they would be sent by > Dumbledore or somehow have their employment > transferred. > > One Flaw about that assumption, Dobby and Winky are > FREE! At first I thought Hermione was being a > typical flaky teenage protester picketing for Save > the Whales and Stop Nuclear Testing, but Hermione > seems to have brought to the forefront a truly > overlooked group. > > Originally I laughed at her stands on Medical Leave > and Retirement. wondering what an elf nedded with > medical care (with their magic I assumed they could > heal themselves), but I reread the sections on Dobby > and Winky. Dobby, if not physically beaten himself, > was ordered to injure himself. Winky, while > following her duty to keep secrets was made an > accessory to jailbreaking, harboring a fugitive, > and IMPERIO (one of the unforgivable curses) > > Are the Hogwart's elves aware of the treatment of > their kind by others? Dobby probably saw the worst > of any elves mistreatment as the servant of a Death > Eater. I don't want to know all that went on with > Winky in Crouch's house (A Deatheater capable of > patricide and a overzealous Auror that encourages > the Use of UnForgiveable Curses). Speaking of lack of freedom and abuse, I was just wondering what the consensus is on house-elves. Do people believe JKR has set up an analogy for African slavery by creating such an oppressed group in the HPverse? Or is our information on house-elves so woefully inadequate that we cannot make a case for or against that concept? Canon-based diatribes are welcome, of course! LTG, 3, wrote: >Lord Voldemort was regenerated (reborn) because of >the BLOOD of his foe (amongst other wonderful >ingredients).... HARRY! Another nod towards Harry >being a Christ figure? Amy Z: >Indubitably, IMO. So is Lily, with her salvific, >sacrificial love . . . So, what do you think? Will >Harry die and live again? And what about >Voldemort--is *he* a Christ figure? He has the >resurrection if not the self-sacrifice.Very >appropriate musings for Holy Week. Am I the only one who feels we've "been there, done that, bought the T-shirt" regarding resurrection? Or am I merely underestimating JKR's ability to bowl me over after 4 books? I'm not crazy about the idea of Harry dying and living again, he's already the Boy Who Lived (and hence the reason why he will continue to live, IMO). And Voldemort has had his little born again soiree. It's true that rebirth, in its literal connotations, and figuratively as redemption is a wonderful theme, but, ack! I'm beginning to develop some cockeyed notions of how Harry could be killed and brought back, and I know why I have a problem with it! It reeks of my bete noire, Soap Opera Plot Extreme! Alright, I'll have faith in JKR. Just because I can't do it doesn't mean she can't construct a fantastic climax without going the Way of the S.O.P.E. A now tranquil(ized) Ama __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards http://movies.yahoo.com/ From trog at wincom.net Wed Mar 27 15:59:44 2002 From: trog at wincom.net (talondg) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:59:44 -0000 Subject: If you were Headmaster of Hogwarts... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37039 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mongo62aa" wrote: > I am curious if anybody else has thought about what they would have > Harry learn if they were Headmaster of Hogwarts. I think that we > can take it as a given that at some point, probably in his seventh > year, Haryy will face Voldemort, probably alone, and only one of > them (at most) will be still alive after that. If that is the case, > then I would think that it is ESSENTIAL that Harry be given far more > preparation than he is getting now. Aha! I have practical experience here. :) I went to a school that was intended to produce the next generation of military leaders. Mind you, we weren't expected to take on the Communist Hordes in single combat, but we were being prepared for careers leading men under arms. We were required to take 7 to 8 courses a semester. Most were manditory. We didn't get electives until 2cd year (and we started at year 0.... long story) Along with the traditional degree-focussed courses, we had to take literature, philosophy, economics, history, military studies, psychology, PT, French (we were required to be functionally billingual before we could graduate), and drill. And yeah, at the time a lot of it seemed irrelevant, and it was one hell of a workload, but I'm profoundly grateful that I did it. I think I've used all of it at some point or another. Having a broad education gives you a bigger toolbox. DG From chynarose8 at hotmail.com Wed Mar 27 15:13:32 2002 From: chynarose8 at hotmail.com (Michelle Strauss) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:13:32 -0500 Subject: Clarification on If I were Headmaster of Hogwarts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37040 Recently, I came under scrutiny for my rather Spartan military post over how to train Harry. When I wrote that, I assumed that Harry would not have years to learn everything he needed to know to survive the Final Battle. Specificlly that the Final Battle would occur sometime during his seventh year which would be a mere two years from the time that Goblet of Fire ends. Two years in which Harry must learn (for his safety) at least as much as a begining Auror. It may be rough on him, but such are the circumstances. If the need were not so grave, I wouldn't prescribe such a condenced course. I appolgise if my somewhat Machiavelian ideas bothered some people. @--->-- Chyna Rose (Who probably belongs in Slytherin and would abolish the house rivalry thing post haste if she really was in charge and didn't have the magical equivalent of WW III breathing down her neck) _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From a.levin at first-class.norcol.ac.uk Wed Mar 27 16:33:47 2002 From: a.levin at first-class.norcol.ac.uk (wibble_flibble) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:33:47 -0000 Subject: HP and similarities to other books Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37041 [Mod note -- edited title. Welcome, Avital! --John, Mod] Hi everyone, I am a grown up (well, -ish ;o) Harry Potter fan who heard about this group from John. I hope this has not been discussed before, and if so, that you will humour me a little and pretend it is new to you! Last weekend I read "The Secret of Platform Thirteen" by Eva Ibbotson, and was quite overcome by the similarities to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone, mostly in the way of characters. At first I though "What a swizz, pinching her ideas from Rowling" then I realised the book was written two years before Harry Potter book 1. So, has anyone else read this book, noticed the "coincidences" and if so, what do you think of it. By the way, I found there were also a couple of very similar ideas to Eoin Colfer's Artemis Fowl too. Looking forward to your response. love avital xxx From trog at wincom.net Wed Mar 27 15:36:11 2002 From: trog at wincom.net (talondg) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:36:11 -0000 Subject: Death and Justice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37042 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "talondg" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > > But note that the Ring is an outside influence, active in its own > > right. It has its own sort of intelligence and agenda _besides_ > > the corruptive nature of the power it offers. > And Voldemort doesn't? No, not in the same sense. The Ring's influence is of a similar nature to an Imperius Curse, in so far that it is a magical influence that makes people do what they would not otherwise do. It's more subtle - it's not like the Ring is possesing people outright and forcing them to march to Mordor - but it's still an influence that has no parallel in the "real" world. This makes the Ring doubly corruptive: it has the corruptive nature of all elements that bring great power (in this way, it does have an analogue in the "real" world) but it also has this magical nature that buttresses the "natural" effect. Serving Voldy has the "natural" corruptive nature of power, but (as far as we know) Voldy has never used the Imperius Curse on a Death Eater to force him to obey. Death Eaters do what they do of their own free will. Wormtail may whine and make excuses a lot, but it's pretty clear that everything he does is of his own will. "The flesh of a servant, willingly given" > > I strongly disagree. The possibility that Wormtail was about to > > wreak further havoc was what motivated Sirius to escape from > > Azkaban, and Lupin's understanding of what happened on that > > fateful night convinces him, too, that Wormtail is too dangerous > > to live. > That's not how Lupin and Black see the situation. They do not see > Pettigrew as a threat. And he shouldn't have been, if they were just > a wee bit more careful. I disagree. You've fallen for Wormtail's act. He _wants_ everyone in the Shack (and you, as the reader, are in there with him) to think that he's harmless, and pitiful, and deserving of mercy, when really he's a scheming, traitorous snake who is plotting how to get loose even while he cries and begs for mercy. As evidenced by his immediate escape at the first opportunity. > > > However, consider that you look out your backwindow and see the > > > wanted murderer lying unconscious on the lawn in a pool of > > > blood, unarmed. Would you be justified in shooting and killing > > > him with your hunting rifle? > > That really depends on the situation. Who is he? What has he done? > > What was the nature of his crimes? What's the context? > Why would that matter? I don't see how his deserving death factors > into your own behaviour. (We're starting to depart from the Wizarding World here, aren't we?) It doesn't. It's not a question of his "deserving death" - in our society, that's a question for the courts. It's a question instead of determining how much immediate danger is posed to myself and my neighbors. In our society, in order to justify the use of deadly force, there must be a clear risk to human life if it is not immediately applied. So if Mr Wanted Murderer came home one day, found his wife in bed with another man, and killed them both in a fit of rage, then he's not likely to be slinking around looking for another victim. But if he's more like Hannibal Lecter, who kills often and without remorse (often on a whim) well... perhaps a pre-emptive shot to a kneecap is in order, just to make sure.... > > But let's tweak the example a little bit. At the risk of invoking > > Godwin's law, let's pretend that 1) I'm French 2) my yard is in > > France 3) It's 1941 and 4) that's Adolf Hitler lying unarmed in my > > backyard. > > > > Changes things, doesn't it? > 2) makes this a faulty parallel to the Shrieking Shack situation. As > has been pointed out many times before, there was no reasonable > expectation on anyone's behalf that Pettigrew would be able to > escape. And I disagree with this asessment. Wormtail had proven to be a very slippery rat indeed, and unlike Hitler, has access to resources above and beyond the "natural". That there is revenge and payback involved just sweetens the pot. It's difficult to find examples of real people who are so compellingly dangerous that they deserve immediate termination on sight. Hitler fits. I suppose one might be able to make the case for Napolean too (decidedly less evil, but like Voldy he DID return from exile to bring another round of wars - I wonder sometimes if Hitler had not comitted suicide and had escaped, if he would be able to pull of the same feat) But wizards are another matter. Wizards have access to powers well beyond human experience. A true psychopath with access to the magic of even a first-year Hogwarts student would be a truly frightening thing in the Real World, and a full-fledged wizard with access to the Dark Arts (like Wormtail) is horrifying - not just to us Muggles, but other wizards as well. No wonder justice in the Wizarding World is so harsh; they have little choice. Even their best, truly horrifying prison seems awfully porous. > However, it being Adolf Hitler... does that change anything? No. Really? Let's say you have a time machine, and a really big gun, and you're going T-Rex hunting (bonus points to those that recognise the reference!) You pull the handle, and step out not into a Jurassic jungle, but instead into a bedroom lit bright by a full moon streaming through the window. A calendar on the wall says "1938" and sleeping there in the bed is unmistakeably Adolf Hitler. WWII hasn't happened yet. The Holocost hasn't happened yet. The pain and suffering of twelve million people hangs in the balance. All you have to do is take the shot. You wouldn't do it? DG From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Mar 27 18:03:03 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:03:03 -0000 Subject: Free Elves Unite/Harry as Saviour In-Reply-To: <20020327163139.80240.qmail@web20410.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37043 Ama wrote: > Speaking of lack of freedom and abuse, I was just > wondering what the consensus is on house-elves. Do > people believe JKR has set up an analogy for African > slavery by creating such an oppressed group in the > HPverse? Or is our information on house-elves so > woefully inadequate that we cannot make a case for or > against that concept? Canon-based diatribes are > welcome, of course! The problem with that paralellism (and any other save 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. 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 and australian aborigenes(sp) sort of leap to mind), although my examples aren't about freedom but technology being imposed. > I'm not crazy about the idea of > Harry dying and living again, he's already the Boy Who > Lived (and hence the reason why he will continue to > live, IMO). And Voldemort has had his little born > again soiree. Neither I am. I have great doubts about Harry's survival at the end of book 7, but whatever the outcome, I hope no "magical" solution is discovered in the last moment to bring Harry back alive. Unlike JesusChrist case, I think that resurrection would only devalue Harry's efforts (and the whole siries). However, I can accept that he's gravely injured by the end of the figth (I can even see the title of that last chapter: "The boy who lived", bringing everything to a nice cycle), with some other major charater dying in very useful self-sacrifice that helps Harry win. R.I.C.K.'S.T.H.E.B.O.S.S, anyone? (Ron Identified with the Chess Knigth: Surpasses his Triunfant, Heroic or Excelent Brothers Only by Self-Sacrifice) Hope that helps Grey Wolf, filling in for Tabouli's Acronym-machine while she's on holiday, and hoping no-one ever comes up with a perfect theory on Harry surviving (or not) Voldemort's last hour, since doubting that outcome will give so much more enjoyment to the last book. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Mar 27 18:05:41 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:05:41 -0000 Subject: Questions about MoM Political and Legal Systems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37044 Brenna wrote: > And what happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Hagrid is hauled of to Azkaban without any preface, Harry receives an expulsion threat for magic that Dobby did, and Fudge doubts Harry because of a tabloid article! << And Sirius was imprisoned without trial. The broad powers of Crouch as Head of Magical Law Enforcement and judge of the Council of Magical Law are reminiscent of the Scottish legal system which was based on Roman models. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of English common law and did not apply in Scotland as late as the 18th century. The judge's job was not to make sure that a trial was conducted according to precedent, but to investigate and find out what happened, similar to the way the French appointed a judge to investigate the death of Princess Diana. One may theorize that the wizarding courts are also based on Roman models. Dumbledore, whom I assume is English, applies the "innocent until proven guilty" standard to his governance of Hogwarts, but that does not mean it is a principle of wizarding jurisprudence as a whole. Pippin From uncmark at yahoo.com Wed Mar 27 18:12:10 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:12:10 -0000 Subject: Peter's Flaw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37045 In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" > wrote: > > > Dicentra doesn't have any pity for Peter as he writhes on the > > floor crying crocodile tears Not thinking" *that* used to be a > > Marauder! How far he has fallen!"? In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" wrote: > It looks to me like Peter had and still has only one flaw: fear of > death. It's the reason he gives Lupin and Black for betraying the > Potters. It is, IMHO, the reason he goes to find LV. It is the > reason he does everything. He cuts off his hand to revive LV. He > looks to LV to give him immortality, which is probably true of all > the DE's. > > This is also LV's defining motive: to attain immortality. LV is > a coward, driven by this same fear. I'd be more concerned with what exactly makes up Wormtail's new silver hand. In previous posts, I guessed (A) The silver hand was true silver and deadly to wereeolves, foreshadowing Lupin's death. (B) The 'silver' of the hand is similar to the 'silver' strands of Dumbledore's Pensieve. Some form of Voldemort's thoughts to either control Wormtail, to see through Wormtail using him as a spy camera, or maybe to cast magic through him from a safe distance. (C) Like Riddle's Diary, the silver hand might be a backup plan if Voldemort faces death again. Whatever the silver hands secret, I'm guessing that it will ultimately cause Wormtail's destruction rather than extend his life. Uncmark From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Wed Mar 27 18:28:29 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:28:29 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Creation of the Term "Put Outer" References: Message-ID: <009c01c1d5bd$317263c0$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 37046 > > > >It is a clunky name - sort of the thing that when people name things > >in that manner in fanfiction, I generally am less interested in the > >story because it's not JKR-ian in its creativity with creating and > >naming magics. > > Oh, dear. Am I the _only_ one who was delightfully tickled by the > play on "lighter"? :( > No, I love the "lighter" play too, and having thought about it a bit; having a "Put-Outer" at this point in the story i.e. at the beginning and creating the magical world scenario its just the right sort of name to give it. Not elegant, sure, but it always makes me smile and it's so very Dumbledore to have one! Felicia. From MmeBurgess at msn.com Wed Mar 27 18:29:06 2002 From: MmeBurgess at msn.com (Angela Burgess) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:29:06 -0500 Subject: Peter and Death Sentences Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37047 Someone (I don't know who) wrote: > The fact is, you cannot base any argument about Wormtail's death on > "If they had killed him, many other people wouldn't have died", > since they couldn't have known (the plan was to imprison him, not > let him go free). Then DG responded: "They DID know. They had steeled themselves to the task at hand (taking any life, even one as deserving of death as Wormtail, is never a casual decision) and were about to do the deed when Harry stepped in. And even then, they did so only with the knowledge that there were Dementors near at hand into whose custody Wormtail would be released immediately, and EVEN THEN he was warned that he would be immediately killed if he tried to escape. Sirius and Lupin are treating him as if he were the most dangerous creature in the universe, and are entirely correct to do so. Past behaviour is on their side." I say: I believe that DG might be confusing the issue here to a certain extent. What "they" (Remus and Sirius) did not know was what Peter would do. Yes, they knew he was dangerous, yes, they knew he had contributed to the deaths of James and Lily, but there was no inidication while he was still in rat form that he was going back to Voldemort to kill many more. Even after he was transformed and had told his story, while they might suspect what he was planning to do, they did not KNOW it. We have no evidence to believe that in the Wizarding World, one can be convicted to death simply because of what they suspected of planning. The crime has to be actually commited (or in Sirius' case, they believed there was proof enough indicating he had commited said crime). Also, I do not believe that Sirius and Remus were treating as if he were the "most dangerous creature in the universe". He is not and they are well aware of this fact. In my mind, their treatment of him is pitiful and degrading, they do give him the respect he feels he deserves, but Peter does not act deserving of respect OR fear. While he does act like an animal, the animal he resembles is not one that is dangerous. I can't think of an appropriate animal resemblance actually. Animals typically do not plead for their lives to all of the animals around. They defend themselves, fighting back and generally acting, well, animal-like. They do not typically snivel, beg on hands and knees, compliment, etc. DG later wrote (in the same post): "There exist people who cannot be rehabilitated. There exist situations where you cannot take the time to try and heal the underlying problems. The exists situtations where you must *act*, and act quickly, in order to defend yourself and/or your society." I say: While I believe that you are correct, there do exist people who cannot be rehabilitated, it is not up to general society members to decide this. Not in our world, not in the wizarding world. There do exist situations where one must act quickly to defend oneself and society. Once again though, the taking-out of an unarmed criminal for the simple purpose of revenge is not one of those situations. Yes, the wizarding world may have been a better place if Peter had been killed. Then again, maybe not. One can never know. It is impossible for us to say what might have been if such-and-such had happened. However, I am of the belief that Sirius was not out to kill Peter based on what he believed Peter *might* do. He was out to kill him because he wanted to. Not to save society, not to save himself, not to save Harry, but because he felt Peter deserved to die. There is no indication to the contrary (that I can remember), therefore applying more ethical goals to the actions of Remus and Sirius is simply wishful thinking. Reading back over this, it doesn't seem to make nearly as much sense as it does in my head, so I apologize it I have lost anyone or confused the issues. Also, this is from the first of 3 digests that I received today (75 messages!!), so I apologize if it is outdated. Angela BurgessGet more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Mar 27 19:20:31 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:20:31 -0000 Subject: My favorite bit of foreshadowing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37048 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "zoehooch" wrote: > So, that my favorite bit of Rowling foreshadowing an event. I'd enjoy > hearing from other readers their favorite bit of foreshadowing. > > Zoe Hooch Having recently read (once again) the four books, the bit of foreshadowing I prefer is definetely the twin's prediction of the quidditch final. Does anyone know of someone who, after that astounding bet, thought "oh God, they're going to loose all their money! That outcome is absolutely impossible!"? (True enough, they loose all their money, but not because they miss-bet. Then again, they end up with 1000 galleons, much more than they would have recieved). If I remeber correctly, once I read it I was absolutely sure they were rigth to the last detail, and was very happy about it because I would've followed Ireland's team without a doubt. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Mar 27 19:23:08 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:23:08 -0000 Subject: Wormtail's fault - Life-debt - Muggle house - Christ figures In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37049 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > Grey Wolf wrote: > > >V only needed the help of _ANY_ DE to return. Wormtail was available, but > >in less than three months, so would have been Crouch Jr. So, in fact, > >Wormtail only made the return of V a little faster, and in reality not even > >that, since they had to wait until after the quidditch cup, and by then V > >had already contacted Crouch Jr. > > Crouch Jr. couldn't have been freed from his father's Imperius Curse if Voldemort hadn't returned to England, and he could only return to England thanks to Wormtail. I don't think JKR subscribes to the "one man" theory of history. Look what she has Harry say when Hagrid blames himself for giving away Fluffy's secret: "Hagrid, he'd have found out somehow, this is Voldemort we're talking about, he'd have found out even if you hadn't told him." There's also Dumbledore's words to Harry when he blames himself for letting Pettigrew get away. "The consequences of our actions are always so complicated, so diverse, that predicting the future is a difficult business indeed..." The implication is that eventually, with or without Wormtail, Voldie would have found some way to come back. The damage Voldemort causes by being resurrected also has to be weighed against the fact that Wormtail, by returning him to a mortal form, has made it possible for Voldemort to die. > >I must say that I really, *really* cannot see > >how JKR is going to make Harry grateful that he saved Wormtail's > >life. Say even if W rescues Harry, or Ron, or someone else from > >V -- But V would never have come back and put whoever in the position > >of needing to be saved in the first place if it hadn't been for W. > >So I really can't see Harry feeling grateful for it under any > >circumstances. Can any of you think of any? > Well, Dumbledore doesn't say Harry will feel grateful. He says Harry will be glad. I think ultimately Harry will be in a position where he must sacrifice his life to save the world from Voldemort, and that Wormtail will intervene at this point to save Harry, destroy Voldemort and fulfill his debt. Since Harry believes, as Hagrid does, that Voldemort's return was inevitable, he is not likely to think, well, if Pettigrew hadn't brought him back none of this would have happened. Instead he'll think, well, I and my friends are alive because I did what my father would have done. Pippin From huntleyl at mssm.org Wed Mar 27 19:41:20 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:41:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Clarification on If I were Headmaster of Hogwarts References: Message-ID: <00e801c1d5c7$5ef04f60$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 37050 Michelle said: >Recently, I came under scrutiny for my rather Spartan military post over how >to train Harry. When I wrote that, I assumed that Harry would not have years >to learn everything he needed to know to survive the Final Battle. >Specifically that the Final Battle would occur sometime during his seventh >year which would be a mere two years from the time that Goblet of Fire ends. >Two years in which Harry must learn (for his safety) at least as much as a >begining Auror. It may be rough on him, but such are the circumstances. If >the need were not so grave, I wouldn't prescribe such a condenced course. I'm sorry if you felt you were attacked. ^_^ However, no matter what the circumstances, I believe your idea is just plain wrong. Specifically, why would it be necessary to remove him from the rest of society? Again, my concerns here have nothing to do with going easy on Harry - I believe a little extra-curricular Auror-based study (perhaps with Hermione and Ron to assist his progress)would be very productive. However, the methods you described for turning Harry into a effective warrior against the dark forces aren't going to help him do anything except feel extremely rebellious. I have *never* liked putting aside logic for emotion, however I do believe in this certain situation that it *is* logical to take into Harry's psychological position as a early-teenage boy with abandonment issues into account. Sometimes you can push and push with all your might, when what you really need to be doing is perhaps giving a little pull. You see? Again, I am having trouble putting this into words. I have a hard time believing Harry would go over to the dark side, but your plan seems like the fastest track to getting him there. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From margdean at erols.com Wed Mar 27 20:36:57 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:36:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Free Elves Unite? References: <20020327163139.80240.qmail@web20410.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3CA22D69.D62734CB@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37051 ladjables wrote: > Speaking of lack of freedom and abuse, I was just > wondering what the consensus is on house-elves. Do > people believe JKR has set up an analogy for African > slavery by creating such an oppressed group in the > HPverse? Or is our information on house-elves so > woefully inadequate that we cannot make a case for or > against that concept? Canon-based diatribes are > welcome, of course! My feeling on the house-elves is that JKR is setting us up to find out that neither Ron's nor Hermione's knee-jerk reaction is the whole story. Ron, of course, is our standard pointer toward the received wisdom of the wizarding world, because he's been brought up in a wizarding family: House Elves like it that way and besides, we've =always= done it like that. Hermione here represents the (current) received wisdom of the muggle world: Work without pay is slavery and slavery is Wrong Wrong Wrong. My personal experience (and my estimate of JKR as a writer) lead me to espouse, in this case, Pat Wrede (?)'s dictum: It's Not That Simple. Ever. And I will be =very= interested to see how the ramifications of this work out. --Margaret Dean From zoehooch at yahoo.com Wed Mar 27 20:27:30 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:27:30 -0000 Subject: Clarification on If I were Headmaster of Hogwarts In-Reply-To: <00e801c1d5c7$5ef04f60$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37052 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" wrote: > Again, my concerns here have nothing to do with going easy on >Harry - I believe a little extra-curricular Auror-based study >perhaps with Hermione and Ron to assist his progress)would >be very productive. I'm thinking that the new DADA professor (whomever that may be) will teach Harry many things that he will need to know to go up against Voldemort again. I'm pretty sure that this is part of Dumbledore's plan. Zoe Hooch From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Mar 27 20:31:53 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:31:53 -0000 Subject: If you were Headmaster of Hogwarts... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37053 Bill wrote: > My proposed curriculum is VERY unbalanced, and leaves Harry ill- prepared to deal with life after Hogwarts. But Harry has to be ALIVE in order to deal with post-Hogwarts life. From a story-internal point of view, it looks very possible that Harry and Voldemort will indeed face each other mano-a-mano, where dueling skills will decide who lives and who dies. Sure, he will need a lot of help to get that far, hence the importance of Ron and Hermione, but at the end of the day, Harry's dueling skills look likely to be the deciding factor in the war. << You would be right--except that it's obvious that Dumbledore does not think Harry's duelling skills are going to win the day. And why should he? Duelling skills were not what enabled Harry to defeat Voldemort in their first match-up, nor in any of their subsequent encounters. I figure Voldemort has defeated wizards who were far more skilled at duelling than Harry will ever be -- Harry's father, for one. Harry's ultimate victory will likely turn on his ability to form bonds of love and loyalty with others as Voldemort cannot. Pippin From Ali at zymurgy.org Wed Mar 27 20:47:36 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:47:36 -0000 Subject: ? about MoM Political and Legal Systems - and Death &Justice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37054 Brenna wrote: > And what happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Hagrid is > hauled of to Azkaban without any preface, Harry receives an > expulsion threat for magic that Dobby did, and Fudge doubts > Harry because of a tabloid article! << > Pippin wrote: > And Sirius was imprisoned without trial. The broad powers of > Crouch as Head of Magical Law Enforcement and judge of the > Council of Magical Law are reminiscent of the Scottish legal > system which was based on Roman models. "Innocent until > proven guilty" is a principle of English common law and did not > apply in Scotland as late as the 18th century. snip > One may theorize that the wizarding courts are also based on > Roman models. Dumbledore, whom I assume is English, > applies the "innocent until proven guilty" standard to his > governance of Hogwarts, but that does not mean it is a principle > of wizarding jurisprudence as a whole. > I've wondered instead if they use the principle of "justifiable" internment -(my words not an English Legal Phrase). Certainly in WW2, against terrorism in Northern Ireland, and more recently with regard to the Bin Laden threat, the British Government have legalised Internment without trial (and without charge) to intern those whom it believes to be a threat to its National Security. This is obviously a hugely contentious issue as it goes against all our Fundamental Freedoms, but it has been used. I think that Sirius was caught in a time of war - as although the events took place after the fall of Voldemort, the Wizarding World would still not have adjusted to its Peace Time status. I don't believe that this justifies spending 12 years in Azkaban, but it might explain how such an iniquitous act could have happened. My argument for internment has perhaps more difficult explaining the imprisonment of Hagrid, when National Security was not at stake, but perhaps the wizarding world is more woolly in its definition of this. If the Wizarding World is very small, then any threat to its children - the next generation - would be seen as a threat. (Ok, I think I've gone off on a bit of a tangent to try and prove my point and failed!!). I think the issue of Harry's expulsion is slightly different - as it was only a threat. Interestingly, the threat wasn't used against him when almost immediately he was under threat of expulsion for driving the car to Hogwarts. You'd think perhaps that Dumbledore etc would have viewed Harry's involvement in the car incident as more serious than Ron's, as he had so recently blotted his copy book. Yet this wasn't even mentioned (I think that the school must have been informed although the evidence almost points to the contrary). Onto a slightly different and hugely contentious issue. For me, Capital Punishment is simply too abhorrent, and the taking of life too wrong to be used in anything other than "extreme circumstances". I'm not even sure I know what I mean by extreme circumstances. I don't know what sort of a person living today could fulfill this criteria - without being martyred, and almost more dangerous dead than alive. One reason that we don't have Capital Punishment in Britain (it still exists on our statute books for 3 crimes including treason and for some reason Arson in a Naval Dockyard) is that we have seen so many Miscarriages of Justice. Just imagine if the Wizarding World had tried Sirius, and they had had the Death Penalty. The evidence would have pointed overwhelmingly towards Sirius' guilt. Ok, he could have said he was innocent - but his only proof is living in a sewer as a rat, hardly compelling when judged against the more tangible and readily available evidence against him. For me, sanctioning the judicious murder of even one individual who is later proven to be innocent highlights the fundamental problem with such an extreme "Punishment" - there can be no going back. I do accept that in the Wizarding World containing "villains" is much more problematic given their extra powers, and could be used as a justification for using Capital Punishment. And yet even here, Sirius (and of course Crouch junior) are the only known prisoners to have escaped from Azkaban; so certainly until recently the wizarding world had a secure place to incarcerate even the most dangerous of criminals rather than kill them. All is of course different at the end of GoF, when it seems that they are once again in a State of War - even if the likes of Fudge cannot bear to admit it. Ali Who is hoping that people will not flame her too much for voicing her own personal views, but interested in the other view point. From huntleyl at mssm.org Wed Mar 27 20:57:08 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:57:08 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Free Elves Unite/Harry as Saviour References: Message-ID: <00f501c1d5d1$f5e21480$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 37055 Grey Wolf said: >The problem with that paralellism (and any other save oppresed faction> 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. 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. While you bring up some interesting points, I can't agree with your assertions here. I believe that, to a point, the elves *are* brainwashed. For example, in America before the emancipation of the slaves (and even for quite a long while afterwards, as I will get to later) it is true, some slaves did want freedom. Others, however, never knowing any other kind of life, not even knowing that they *should* want a change - didn't. They had grown up being told they were inferior, only fit to serve, etc. They looked around them and saw the behavior of their slave peers and the behavior of the white masters and concluded that, indeed, the whites did seem to be smarter, etc. It takes a strong mind to break through a falsity everyone around you takes for truth. After the emancipation, until about half through the 20th century, African Americans were still viewed as "less" than their Caucasian counterparts. There were strict codes that had to be followed by the black population in most, if not all, areas of the country. Blacks could only eat here, sit here, buy these things, stand on this sidewalk, use these musical instruments, go to this school. Blacks who broke these "codes" were not only attacked socially and possibly charged with a crime by the white population, but also socially looked down upon by their African American peers as being improper and the like. And this is all about a group of people who, at about the time of the emancipation, had only been enslaved for a few generations in most cases. Imagine the stigma created against a race of people who had been enslaved for (as it seems in the house elf case) as long back as anyone can remember? What kind of person would it take to break out against that, and imagine the uproar it would cause among both the enslavers and the enslaved. Also, you seem to view the house elves as a happy, healthy people. But consider their reaction towards Winky in GoF. She needed help, she agreed with their state of mind, and yet they made no move to help her. Furthermore, they express great disapproval at Dobby's choice to accept his freedom, to the point where he seems afraid of them. If Hermione is acting as if she knows what's best for them, aren't they guilty of the same against Dobby? Generally, a happy, healthy society does not terrorize those who do not fit in with its standards. Furthermore, I don't believe the words "It's for your own good" are *always* bad. For example, if my mother hadn't been willing to practically beat me every day for the first two months of my life, I wouldn't be alive right now. I'm sure I screamed and was generally upset by this, but it *was* in my best interest. Of course, I may be a little biased in this case, as I am *fiercely* protective of my independence, self-reliance, etc., and that's just me, but your argument for why the slavery house elves are subjected to is not only justifiable, but *good*, sends shivers down my spine. Aside from the Hogwarts elves, house elves seem to be required to punish themselves when they get out of line and are deem themselves unworthy of so many basic freedoms that many other human and humanoid life forms in the WW seem to enjoy. The fact that these restrictions on their liberty are, for the most part, enforced by none other than themselves, is IMHO, not a reason why these restrictions are O.K., but the reason why they are deeply wrong. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Mar 27 22:09:17 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:09:17 -0000 Subject: Free Elves Unite/Harry as Saviour In-Reply-To: <00f501c1d5d1$f5e21480$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37056 Laura Huntley wrote: >> Imagine the stigma created against a race of people who had been enslaved for (as it seems in the house elf case) as long back as anyone can remember? What kind of person would it take to break out against that, and imagine the uproar it would cause among both the enslavers and the enslaved. First off, let me asure you that if we had been talking about any other type of enslavement appart from Potterverse elves, I would agree inmediately with your points. Although I do not place as much importance on personal liberty as (for example) Americans do, I still belive it's very important (in fact, normally placing other species's liberties over human's liberties) and that I do not, in any way, defend ANY kind of forced enslavement (or any other kind) except in fantasy worlds (why the specific mention of fantasy worlds is made is relevant further on). >> Also, you seem to view the house elves as a happy, healthy people. But consider their reaction towards Winky in GoF. She needed help, she agreed with their state of mind, and yet they made no move to help her. Furthermore, they express great disapproval at Dobby's choice to accept his freedom, to the point where he seems afraid of them. If Hermione is acting as if she knows what's best for them, aren't they guilty of the same against Dobby? Generally, a happy, healthy society does not terrorize those who do not fit in with its standards. My defence of the elves enslavement comes from the observation of the typical elf's behaviour after the liberation (I've recently posted 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 both 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, 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 trouble with the 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. > Of course, I may be a little biased in this case, as I am *fiercely* protective of my independence, self-reliance, etc., and that's just me, but your argument for why the slavery house elves are subjected to is not only justifiable, but *good*, sends shivers down my spine. Aside from the Hogwarts elves, house elves seem to be required to punish themselves when they get out of line and are deem themselves unworthy of so many basic freedoms that many other human and humanoid life forms in the WW seem to enjoy. The fact that these restrictions on their liberty are, for the most part, enforced by none other than themselves, is IMHO, not a reason why these restrictions are O.K., but the reason why they are deeply wrong. > > laura Again, let me asure that I'm talking of a particular non-human species that doesn't exist. I hope I'm not coming as a pro-slaver (which I'm not). Once that's out of the way: I'm not sure if you (or anyone else) 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 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. If you accept this interpretation (as one of the possible origins of the elves's enslavement), then it follows that liberating the elves does not only hurt them psicologically, but could mean their self-destruction. Note: If you do NOT agree with this interpretation, the rest of my defense is quite a bit weak, but since I DO believe it, I'll continue to defend this position until Hermione or someone from the list armed with can(n)on proves me incorrect. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed Mar 27 22:38:40 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:38:40 -0000 Subject: Voldemort as Christ figure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37057 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: >And what about Voldemort--is *he* a Christ figure? He has the resurrection if not the self-sacrifice. At last! Someone has said the thing I thought on my first reading of GOF, but have never dared raise (tho' I have hinted on occasion). As well as the resurrection (in a graveyard, of course), he has the disciples, he insists on the exclusive adoration and fidelity, he promises great rewards for his followers, including immortality. He is called 'Lord' by his people. He has been known to live inside his followers. He comes alive in a book. He is represented by a snake lifted up (see John 3: 'As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert...'). He values useless gestures of loyalty more than practical help. He calls on his followers from afar. I assume the religious right were so turned off by the 'witchcraft' that they have never quite got to this particular bomb waiting to go off - but you'd think *someone* would have twigged. To be fair, most of this could also be used to make him out as an anti-Christ, too, who is depicted in Revelation as having a fake resurrection. Voldemort was not strictly dead and, indeed, refers to rebirthing rather than resurrection. The DEs have their version of the mark of the beast. But I do wonder if JKR is in fact saying something about religion, or at least religious sects. David From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed Mar 27 22:51:05 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:51:05 -0000 Subject: Put-Outer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37058 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > And why does JKR, a master > of inventing clever names like veritaserum and pensieve, resort to a > clunky name like Put-Outer? > It may be cultural. To my half-English ears, it does not seem clunky. My son has a little gadget that Lego supply to take apart bricks that are jammed together. It has no name so we call it the taker-aparter. I think inventions of that sort are fairly common here. Washer-upper for example. I agree it is of a different type to Pensieve. Is that not true in the US? Can UK people confirm? Answers may have to drift in the general direction of OT. David From saintbacchus at yahoo.com Wed Mar 27 23:51:14 2002 From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:51:14 -0000 Subject: Who bought the Nimbus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37059 Jenett writes: << At the school (private day school) I currently work at, for example, there's some money that helps to buy some mid-range laptop machines that students who could not otherwise afford them can apply to use. >> Unless I'm misunderstanding you, those computers were for the students to *use*, not for the students *themselves*. As I said in my last post, the broom belongs to Harry, not the team, and that makes all the difference. << The boarding school I went to also had special funds that only benefited some students rather than everyone. ... Some of this money went for things like dorm snacks every Wednesday night for dorm meetings, other treats of that kind that weren't at all academic (movie nights, etc.) >> I'm a graduate of the American public school system, and we had those kinds of treats too - as carrots for either joining extracurricular groups or achieving some kind of academic or extracurricular achievement. But the point is that the reward was there for anyone who wanted to work for it, not just as a prize for being an orphan or whatever. << The college I went to charged about $100 a student as a student activities fee - this money went into a general activities fund, and student groups were funded out of it (groups submitted a desired budget, and via a stated process and preferences, got a certain percentage of that budget to work with.) >> That's how my college works, too; but that's different, as it does in fact benefit the whole student body - or at least, those who choose to make use of the activities. << Or perhaps (and note: we *don't* know if students pay tuition, after all, which removes a lot of your arguments about "Oh, Malfoy would find it so unfair...": if no one pays tuition, and there's extra money left over from the available funds there's no problem spending that extra, for example) they've simply designated some bits of the budget to house activities. >> Are you suggesting that Harry Potter is a house activity? << But to start by saying "Oh, spending money on anything non-academic is ethically impossible" strike me as inaccurate to the extreme, based in my own school experiences. >> And since that's not what I said, I'll agree. What I said is that it's unethical to use school money to buy a broom that belongs to HARRY and not the team. As Uncmark put it, "spending house funds on a personal broom for one student would be like a school's entire athletic budget on a $5000 shoes for one member of the team." And no, I don't think it really matters if the $5000 was a drop in the bucket. The comment about the broom not being educational was meant to point out that Harry doesn't really *need* a broom. It would be different if he were too poor to buy quills and ink, or something. Obviously, the school would have to step in at that point. << Canon doesn't tell us *why* it was ok - but I think there are strong indications that it *is* a reasonable thing to be doing. After all, it's delivered in public, with other teachers about - even if they didnt' see the wink, it's pretty likely other teachers might have asked her about it. If it had truly been a problem, she could surely have delivered it in private or had it left on his bed or something with a note. >> As I said in my last post, I see no problem with McGonagall or the other teachers using their own money to buy Harry a broom. I see a problem with her using someone else's money to buy Harry a broom. --Anna From dicentra at xmission.com Thu Mar 28 00:15:43 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:15:43 -0000 Subject: Voldemort as Christ figure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37060 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > > >And what about Voldemort--is *he* a Christ figure? He has the > resurrection if not the self-sacrifice. > > At last! Someone has said the thing I thought on my first reading of > GOF, but have never dared raise (tho' I have hinted on occasion). > > As well as the resurrection (in a graveyard, of course), he has the > disciples, he insists on the exclusive adoration and fidelity, he > promises great rewards for his followers, including immortality. He > is called 'Lord' by his people. He has been known to live inside his > followers. He comes alive in a book. He is represented by a snake > lifted up (see John 3: 'As Moses lifted up the serpent in the > desert...'). There are some who say that Satan chose to be a serpent in the garden precisely because it was a Christ symbol (the shedding of the skin symbolizing rebirth), and that was part of the deception. Now that we've got two parselmouths on opposite sides of the war, will snakes always symbolize evil in the Potterverse? > > I assume the religious right were so turned off by the 'witchcraft' > that they have never quite got to this particular bomb waiting to go > off - but you'd think *someone* would have twigged. Well, speaking as someone who is on the religious right (in some people's estimation, that is; not necessarily mine) there is nothing about Voldemort to suggest that Christ himself is being portrayed or criticized. You're more accurate with the anti-Christ imagery. Evil often comes as a forgery--the imitation of good that is in fact corrupt. > > But I do wonder if JKR is in fact saying something about religion, or > at least religious sects. It's awfully hard to know what kind of larger messages--if any--JKR is trying to communicate beyond the ones stated clearly, such as abilities vs. choices. We know that she is herself extremely indignant about oppression and injustice, so when I read GoF I wondered if Hermione's S.P.E.W. campaign were going to become a soapbox. To my surprise, it didn't--it just petered out. It might come back later, but the argument from Hagrid et al. that "they like it" might actually be valid in the WW, given that they're not human and have different psychological needs. Anyway, I don't think that there are many parallels between Voldemort's following and a sect (cult did you mean?) because there's quite a bit missing. The usual criticism of cults is that one charismatic person is bamboozling a lot of gullible people out of their lives and property (emphasis on property) and that they've lost the ability to think for themselves. Cult leaders accomplish this primarily by isolating people on a compound and designating it a Utopia where We The Chosen will make our paradise. Voldemort's followers are and always have been integrated into the society. They are required to obey Voldemort absolutely, but that's a little different from not being able to think for yourself. They are still capable of disagreeing with him, they just keep it to themselves to avoid a Crucio. For all we know, some plot against him from within. Voldemort is trying to create a type of Utopia (no mudbloods) but that seems secondary to the goal of Ruling The World With Blood And Horror. Not unlike some of the genocides that have happened in the past century: the point never really is to "clean things up," it is to get rid of your enemies and terrorize your allies ("mess with us and you're next"). I would say that if any parallels are to be drawn, they are to the political horrors of dictatorships and the like, who get a select few to go along with them by promising them political power, and then they go about wreaking havoc in the name of whatever name they've chosen that day. --Dicentra, who hasn't seen anything remotely blasphemous in HP From ladjables at yahoo.com Thu Mar 28 00:38:35 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:38:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Tom Riddle/Trelawney Message-ID: <20020328003835.43706.qmail@web20408.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37061 Ecuman (refuting Finwitch's claim that wands are just weapons): > Well I don't think that a wand is just "a tool" like > a knife is to a psycho. A wand is more than > that...After all, you also mention Olivander's > famous quote of "its the wand that chooses the > wizard." Well does a knife choose its killer? The > wand has a mind of its own, to some degree...I > began this thread of Harry's and Voldemort's wands > being "good and evil." I still stand by the idea > of it and the brotherhood that the wands share: the > one evil brother rising to power and the deserving > brother triumphing later over him (post # 36717). It > just all goes back to the question of why 2 feathers > and why from Fawkes. I enjoy this topic so much, I didn't edit half as much as I should have. Speaking of the brotherhood of the wands, ecuman, did you know that the name Thomas, as in Tom Riddle/Voldemort means twin?! Just a little something to ruminate on... lipglossusa wrote, on dear Trelawney: >However, I don't necessarily think that Dumbledore >would have found a teenage Trelawney a very reliable >sorce of information. I imagine she was a thousand >times more fake than she is now. If she had made any >kind of prediction, I doubt anyone would have paid >attention, or believed her. If Trelawney were a melodramatic pest even as a teenager then I think that is precisely why Dumbledore would have taken her seriously. He has that marvellous ability to dissect character and (bad pun alert) get to the heart of an individual. Note Lupin is a werewolf but a very gentle person. Dumbledore gave him his first paying job. And Snape was a Death-Eater but Dumbledore still vouched for him at the trial seen in the Pensieve. Hagrid is half-giant and an incompetent drunk, but Dumbledore trusts him with his life. Just because Trelawney seems a right old fraud doesn't mean she cannot ever make an accurate prediction, as we found out. If Trelawney had indeed made a prediction at school, Dumbledore would have been the first to wonder if Sibyll had talent as a medium. Her flighty manner would not have concerned him in the least, because he does not condemn anyone for their shortcomings. He can see past their failings and recognize their true worth. The old dingbat may be more important than we think! lipglossusa: >I also wonder if Trelawney's prediction isn't >directly tied to Harry at all. Dumbledore is the >one who "mentions" that the trance Harry sees is >Trelawney's second prediction, and if the first >somehow predicted Harry's confrontation with >Voldemort that killed his parents, it would seem (to >me) a bit insensitive of him to hint this to Harry in >light conversation. It's possible Trelawney originally predicted that a Dark Lord would arise, but we really don't know. If her prediction involved Harry and his parents, I don't know that D. mentioned the prophecy for this reason. Was he hinting anything to Harry or simply emphasizing Trelawney's track record ain't all that impressive? After all, he didn't go on to explain what the prediction was, which would have been too much for Harry at that point. Therefore, his comments served to assuage Harry's anxiety, not increase it. Thanks Grey Wolf, by the way, for the timeline, it helped to organize my thoughts. Ama __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards http://movies.yahoo.com/ From plumeski at yahoo.com Thu Mar 28 00:41:48 2002 From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:41:48 -0000 Subject: Who bought the Nimbus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37062 This isn't a reply to any specific post in this thread, just a general observation. I don't mean to come down on any of those who see some deeper meaning in all of this, but I'm wondering if some folks are finding it a bit too difficult waiting for Book Five. :-) Paraphrasing the rule of Okham's (or whatever alternative spelling you prefer) Razor, "the simplest explanation is usually the closest to the truth", I personally can't see a problem with accepting that McGonagall bought Harry the broom with her own money as a personal gift (with a benign ulterior motive). Why she did so doesn't require too much thought - she was there when Harry was left with the Dursleys and knows better than most how he must have been treated ("You couldn't find two people who are less like us"), and appreciates that Harry probably needs some cheering up. She's desperate for Gryffindor to win the cup (or, more particularly, for Slytherin to lose), and she herself sees Harry as the best chance for that. She had to pull strings to allow a first-year to have a broom of his own, and I agree that lots of debate could be had as to how she managed to convince Snape that "Famous" Harry Potter was worthy of breaking a seemingly important Hogwarts rule. But I can't see any way that canon supports the need to seek any complicated arrangement whereby McGonagall paid for the broom with school funds, or worse yet, Harry's own. That Harry got the broom came as something of a surprise to him (more so in the movie than the book), so I doubt any prior communication was had between the two of them about payment. And McGonagall is far to ...err.. "noble" to steal from one of her pupils, even if it is for his own advancement. Incidentally, McGonagall appears to have no real or imagined proprietorial interest in the Nimbus - when it's smashed up, she's one of the few teachers who *don't* have something to say about it. At the very least, I would've expected her to have comiserated with Harry for his loss, but she doesn't even comment on it when the Firebolt turns up. From scaryfairymary at hotmail.com Thu Mar 28 00:44:33 2002 From: scaryfairymary at hotmail.com (scaryfairymary) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:44:33 -0000 Subject: If you were Headmaster of Hogwarts... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37063 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mongo62aa" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > > In my curriculum, he is still in Gryffindor > tower, taking DADA, Potions, Transfiguration, and Charms with his > friends, so he is not totally isolated. > > Bill I think that it's essential for Harry to remain fully integrated with the rest of the students. The only place that Harry feels that he completely fits in with "the norm" is Hogwarts. To take this away from him would be as good as taking his very identity, and would ultimately be detrimental to his chances against V. For years he was "the odd one out" in the muggle world, and if the headmaster was to take him out of the normal school routine at Hogwarts, he would once again be in this position. However, I do believe that he *and* Hermione and Ron need some *extra* training. Maybe something along the lines of Harry's training with Lupin and the boggart, after school for an hour or two, once or twice a week. I feel the only way to fully prepare Harry is to leave him to live as normal a life possible for someone in his position, and allow him to develop as a well rounded and balanced character. -M at RY- From huntleyl at mssm.org Thu Mar 28 01:08:50 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:08:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Put-Outer/free elves unite References: Message-ID: <016101c1d5f5$1f44f040$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 37064 First a short memo about the put-outer, then on to elves and slavery. David said (in relation to the "clunkiness" of the word Put-outer): >It may be cultural. To my half-English ears, it does not seem >clunky. My son has a little gadget that Lego supply to take apart >bricks that are jammed together. It has no name so we call it the >taker-aparter. I think inventions of that sort are fairly common >here. Washer-upper for example. >I agree it is of a different type to Pensieve. >Is that not true in the US? Can UK people confirm? *looks impressed* You actually made a word for that little lego tool thing? Hum. At my house we just said "You know that..." and accompanied our words with a intricate wrist movement. Actually, sometimes we didn't say anything at all and just started looking around and making the wrist movement repetitively. *sighs* Oh well, *we* all knew what we were talking about. Anyway, I'm American, and at my household we rely more on elaborate hand gestures (this may be due to our Italian heritage, it can get rather hectic when all my extended family gets together -- everyone ends up flailing their arms around in an attempt to be "heard" over everyone else) than anything else to get our point across, but I found no problem with JKR's use of the word "Put-outer". In fact, I liked it. It added to the dynamic of the story, IMO. There you are, reading, and a strange, wizardly-looking man pulls out a silver contraption and points it at a street lamp. I, for one, was expecting it to be called something elaborate and foreign, and when it ended up being just a "Put-outer" I was quite tickled. *is easily amused, I suppose* It also tallies with Dumbledore's personality. You're always expecting him to say or do something dramatic (e.g. after the sorting ceremony of Harry's first year, Dumbledore gets up, looking all impressive and says something along the lines of "Before we begin our banquet, I would like to say a few words, and here they are: Nitwit, Blubber, Oddment, Tweak. Thank you."..do you see what I'm getting at?). okay, back to the more serious matter. Grey Wolf said: >This situation reflects my 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. >If you accept this interpretation (as one of the possible origins of >the elves's enslavement), then it follows that liberating the elves >does not only hurt them psicologically, but could mean their >self-destruction. Yeah, but is perpetual bondage better than death? I know it's sort of a personal thing, but if I had to choose the fate of myself and any future offspring I might have (and any of their offspring, etc.) I would like to believe I would be brave enough to go with what I believe is right, and choose death. I also have trouble believing the elven race viewed *itself* as too powerful and therefore put *itself* into bondage. As all the elves would have been equally powerful (and they don't seem particularly aggressive) they wouldn't have posed a threat to each other. More likely, the wizard population found them too powerful for their liking and therefore used magic, laws, etc to eventually bond them all as slaves to a certain house/family (I am sure there is some old magic to do this). Eventually, no one would know it had ever been any different, and elves and wizards alike would view this enslavement as good/normal. I think laws that are in effect in the WW, such as the law against an elf carrying a wand, are reflections of this. Somewhere back the wizards were threatened by the elves, so they destroyed that threat. I also believe such measures are being taken against other magical creatures that wizards deem a threat to their king-of-the-magical-hill status, such as dragons. tsk. tsk. Bad wizards. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From uncmark at yahoo.com Thu Mar 28 01:27:37 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 01:27:37 -0000 Subject: Who bought the Nimbus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37065 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "GulPlum" wrote: > This isn't a reply to any specific post in this thread, just a > general observation. > > I don't mean to come down on any of those who see some deeper > meaning in all of this, but I'm wondering if some folks are finding > it a bit too difficult waiting for Book Five. :-) > > Paraphrasing the rule of Okham's (or whatever alternative spelling > you prefer) Razor, "the simplest explanation is usually the closest > to the truth", I personally can't see a problem with accepting that > McGonagall bought Harry the broom with her own money as a personal > gift (with a benign ulterior motive). Why she did so doesn't > require too much thought - she was there when Harry was left with > the Dursleys and knows better than most how he must have been > treated > She had to pull strings to allow a first-year to have a broom of > his own, and I agree that lots of debate could be had as to how she > managed to convince Snape that "Famous" Harry Potter was worthy of > breaking a seemingly important Hogwarts rule. > > But I can't see any way that canon supports the need to seek any > complicated arrangement whereby McGonagall paid for the broom with > school funds, or worse yet, Harry's own. That Harry got the broom > came as something of a surprise to him (more so in the movie than > the book), so I doubt any prior communication was had between the > two of them about payment. And McGonagall is far too err.. "noble" > to steal from one of her pupils, even if it is for his own > advancement. As I see it, there are three possibilities if we take it as a given the broom was bought by McGonagall. A) She bought it with House Funds. As I stated in my posts this would be a misuse of funds. Lucius Malfoy, as part of the Board of Governors, could have her brought up on charges. B) McGonagall bought it with her own money. This is possible, but it doesn't sit well with a teacher who'd later take 150 points off for Harry, Hermione, and Neville being out of bed. She has never shown favoritism for Harry beyond fear for his safety, which she'd show for any student. C) MY THEORY is that she went to Dumbledore for approval to buy Harry the Nimbus with Harry's gold. I suggest that the key to Harry's vault (which Hagrid gave him in SorSt) was kept by Dumbledore as a wizrd guardian. When Sirius Black, Harry's godfather, went to Azkaban Dumbledore stepped in as guardian placing Harry in the Dursley's care, but keeping control of Harry's vault until Harry is of age in the Wizarding World. BTW, What is Age of Consent for Wizard's? Could Harry write a will leaving his gold to the Weasley's? Uncmark From Zarleycat at aol.com Thu Mar 28 01:50:48 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 01:50:48 -0000 Subject: James set up for a Fall? (Was Wormtail's fault - Life-debt ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37066 .--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > How about a different take altogether? Harry will be glad he saved Wormtail > not because Wormtail ever does anything to bring about Voldemort's downfall > and/or Harry's rescue (though, as stated above, I think he will), but for > the same reason Harry gave for saving him from Remus's & sirius's wrath: he > thinks his father wouldn't have wanted them (him) to be killers. He stood > up for mercy of a kind, modeling himself after what he imagines his father > to have been like, and that decision is crucial to the development of his > own soul. The theme of father-son relationships underlies much of the Potter books. The picture Harry has of James in his own mind certainly colors his thoughts and actions. He gets angry with Snape when Snape makes disparaging remarks about James. He acts in ways he think would earn James' approval. Yet, Harry does not have a very complete picture of James. He has had snippets of how wonderful James was from Hagrid. He knows that Sirius and Remus were great friends of James, but has not yet had the opportunity to sit down with either of them to talk about his parents in any depth. Dumbledore has probably given Harry the most revealing slivers of insight into James' life and Harry knows from this that Dumbldedore thought well of James. It's safe to say that Dumbledore knows a great deal about James and Lily and hasn't yet told Harry all he knows. As a smart cookie, I'm sure D realizes that James was not a saint, and had his faults, like every human. However, I don't recall anyone, including Dumbledore, saying anything negative about James, with the exception of the Dursleys and Snape. And, of course, these are the people Harry despises most, with the possible exception of Draco, so any disparaging remarks they may make about James will be immediately discounted by Harry. Harry's view of James at this point in his life may be providing him with a sure, steady moral compass. But, if only for dramatic tension, I think that Harry's view of James needs to be shaken up a little. I would not be at all surprised to find that JKR reveals a nasty character trait or two of James' that will conflict with Harry's idealized vision of him. Marianne From Zarleycat at aol.com Thu Mar 28 02:02:10 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 02:02:10 -0000 Subject: Peter's Flaw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37067 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" wrote: > It looks to me like Peter had and still has only one flaw: fear of > death. It's the reason he gives Lupin and Black for betraying the > Potters. It is, IMHO, the reason he goes to find LV. It is the reason > he does everything. He cuts off his hand to revive LV. He looks to > LV to give him immortality, which is probably true of all the DE's. Hmmm, maybe. But I think that is part of a greater character flaw and I don't know if I can describe what I'm thinking. I believe that Peter has no center. Maybe he's amoral, maybe he's completely self- centered and ego-driven. I'm not sure how to describe it. I think that his own self-interest/self-preservation is the most important motiviation he has. He's not so good in school? Then he aligns himself with three very bright boys who can and will help him out. And, maybe he's not such a weak wizard; maybe he's lazy, but can get away with it because he's got these friends who will carry him along with them. Times are tough and scary? He aligns himself with the side he thinks is most likely to win the war. Faced with angry ex-friends in the Shrieking Shack? He falls back on whining and grovelling. Note, he never apologizes for any of his actions - it's all I-was-scared-V-was-so-powerful-what-else-could-I- do, conveniently overlooking the fact that he had been spying for a year or so before betraying the Potters. Fear of death certainly plays into this, but I think that's only one facet of Peter's character. Marianne From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Mar 28 02:11:20 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 02:11:20 -0000 Subject: Voldemort as Christ figure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37068 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > > >And what about Voldemort--is *he* a Christ figure? He has the > resurrection if not the self-sacrifice. The first symbol of death and resurrection we see in HP is Fawkes the Phoenix, which in both ancient http://www.apocalyptic-theories.com/literature/phoenix/phoenix.html and modern poetry http://www.angelfire.com/band/PhoenixHeart/ has been used as a symbol of Christ's death and resurrection. The early Church fathers believed in the literal existence of the Phoenix as the risen Lord. You may remember Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthian Church (roughly 105 AD, 50 years after Paul): "Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed." When Harry stands defenseless before Tom Riddle in the Chamber of Secrets, it is only his faith in Dumbledore (and by extension, Fawkes), that saves him "Do not think I have come to peace to the Earth: I come not bringing peace but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). "Dumbledore's been driven out of this castle by the mere memory of me!" he hissed. "He's not as gone as you might think!" Harry retorted. He was speaking at random, wanting to scare Riddle, Wishing Rather Than Believing It To Be True .(Good Definition of Faith!) A crimson bird the size of a swan had appeared, piping its weird music to the vaulted ceiling A second later, the bird was flying straight at Harry. It dropped the ragged thing it was carrying at his feet, then landed heavily on his shoulder "That's a phoenix" said Riddle, staring shrewdly back at it . Riddle began to laugh again. He laughed so hard that the dark chamber rang with it, as though ten Riddles were laughing at once "This is what Dumbledore sends his defender! A songbird and an old hat! Do you feel brave, Harry Potter? Do you feel safe now?" As for Voldemort's pseudo-Death & Rebirth, it is perfectly consistent with the antique Christian precept of Diaboli Simia Dei ? The Devil is God's Ape. "Satan himself masquerades as an apostle of light," as the Apostle says (II Corinthians 11:15) Unable to effect anything original, Our Father Below is doomed to forever parodying and burlesquing the achievements of God (see the Book of Revelations). Voldy as Christ also conflicts with the much more obvious parallels of the infant Harry as Christ: This little babe, so few days old Is come to rifle Satan's fold, All hell doth at his presence quake Though He Himself with cold do shake For in His week unarmed wise The gates of hell He will surprise. If Satan cannot cast out Satan, are we to assume that Voldemort would be any more successful in casting out Voldemort? - CMC The Phoenix Through the Flames >From the Ashes Rising Birth of Life! Through the Fires and Flames of Hell, For I have overcome. Risen From the Ashes I've begun Anew! I've Lived and Felt the anguish, despising experiences which Never should have been but were. I've seen the Lives destroyed, the pain and anger in Full. Facing these, and the Reflection of the Mirror, I've chosen the Path of Life Which Rises to Life Where the Light of Love Shines upon. Eyes with Tears, Cleansed with Clarity, Touched by Love that Never dies, Life it Forever brings. The Love of the Phoenix, Shields you with its' wings, as protecting its young! Embrace - For you are Loved, And Shall Always Be! This is your Eternity Peace Be With You! From mdemeran at hotmail.com Thu Mar 28 02:49:00 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (Meg Demeranville) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:49:00 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Magic Outside of School References: <20020322184336.89680.qmail@web10906.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37069 Sorry that I am so late in responding to this but I had to think about it some (plus that stupid thing called a job...) Debbie wrote : With all the charmed wands and Ton-Tongue Toffees that the Weasley Twins have been busy concocting (not to mention the teddy bear they transfigured when they were 5), why haven't they been expelled? Doesn't each one require a separate spell? Molly worries about the Improper Use of Magic Office coming after them, but they've gotten away with quite a bit. But the real shocker is that even follow-the-rules Hermione claims of the train to Hogwarts in PS/SS that she's tried a few simple spells and they all worked. Melanie replied: My theory on Hermione is quite simply that she asked the school if she may practice simple spells before school so that she was more than ready in the fall. My theory on Hermione is that before beginning Hogwarts for the first time there is no restriction placed on them doing magic. It is not until when they are leaving are the students told that they cannot perform magic outside of school. This would account for the accidental magic that pre-Hogwarts Muggle born students perform as well as the twins transfiguration of the teddy bear. I think Hermione represents an oddity in that she actually tries and gets some spells right. I don't think she asked, I think it was figured that, especially among Muggle born students, they would lack the ability to do anything that would get them into trouble. Of course, she could always just be talking big and trying to make herself seem important, making up for her fear or nervousness in the situation. We see Harry spending his last month reading all of his course books (and IMO probably trying out some of the spells), but in Charms class on Halloween is the first time that we read about the students actually using their wands.Flitwick makes reference to using the proper swish and flick that they have been practicing. I think that since Hermione does not mention again using magic over the summer, I think that after getting her notice at the end of first year, she does not perform spells over the summer. As far as the Weasleys go, I think that as long as their parents perform the spells (car and the like) they can use the tools, so to speak. Or else, I will agree that probably since they live in a magical household, they aren't quite as screened. Fred and George do not use magic when they rescue Harry. They pick the lock to his door and the closet under the stairs. The use the car's strength to pull off the window bars. Being that they are Gred and Forge, I would imagine they know all of the loopholes in the restriction. Even Ron knows that in an emergency, underage wizards are allowed to use magic "section nineteen or something of the Restriction of Thingy" (CoS). I would think that with brothers like his, he would know exactly when they could get away with using magic. I think this covers everything. Meg -- trying to survive a very long week at work From boggles at earthlink.net Thu Mar 28 03:23:10 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 21:23:10 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] More Harry as Saviour, If I Were Headmaster, and a bit of MoM In-Reply-To: <20020327025556.22666.cpmta@c012.snv.cp.net> References: <20020327025556.22666.cpmta@c012.snv.cp.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37070 At 6:55 PM -0800 3/26/02, L. Terrell Gould, III wrote: >Lord Voldemort was regenerated (reborn) because of the BLOOD of his >foe (amongst other wonderful ingredients).... HARRY! Another nod >towards Harry being a Christ figure? The blood-is-life theme and the regenerative aspects of blood are actually pretty common in world religions. At 2:24 AM -0500 3/27/02, Amy Z wrote: >So is Lily, with her salvific, sacrificial love . . . One could argue that this would make her a type of Inanna or Isis, rather than any figure from Christian cosmology. Not that I'm claiming that the Christian interpretation is wrong, mind. I'm just pointing out that there may be other religious sources as well, and that some of the archetypes being drawn upon by Rowling are universal ones, rather than being limited to one religion. At 7:24 PM -0500 3/26/02, Michelle Strauss wrote: >And I am throwing in my two knuts. If I was the headmaster, and it were up >to me to prepare Harry for the Final Battle, one of the first things I'd do >is pull him from the general population. Once Harry has been academiclly >isolated and insolated from such concerns as house rivalry, *snip* I see Harry's isolation from his peers at the Dursleys' as one of their most effective methods of stunting him. Very little they threw at him had much effect; that did. Harry's full blossoming as a human seems to take place in the company of his friends, and removing them from him is the worst possible torture - look at his reactions to being separated, voluntarily more or less, from Ron in GoF. Removing him socially from the other students, and especially from the affections of his own House, seems to be letting the Dursleys win by default - and I can't imagine that Voldemort wouldn't be well-served by that. It was love that saved Harry the first time; I suspect love will be Voldemort's downfall again. Isolation of Harry, no matter for what sort of training, actively works against that, IMHO. At 8:47 PM +0000 3/27/02, alhewison wrote: >(it still >exists on our statute books for 3 crimes including treason and for >some reason Arson in a Naval Dockyard) How old is this law? I get this images of wooden ships and kegs of black powder . . . -- - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon boggles at earthlink.net === Personal Growth Geek Code v0.4 === GG++ !T A-- M++s--- g+ B- C- P++++ a- b- h+ her++ E+ N n++ i f+ c++ S%++++&&># D R++ xc++ xm+ xi+ yd++ ys++(-) rt+ ro+ rp++++ rjk<+ ow+++ ofn+ oft++ op++ esk-- ey+ ek+++ pl++ pf++ pe++ U! From zoehooch at yahoo.com Thu Mar 28 03:56:52 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 03:56:52 -0000 Subject: Who bought the Nimbus? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37071 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" wrote: > C) MY THEORY is that she went to Dumbledore for approval to buy Harry > the Nimbus with Harry's gold. I suggest that the key to Harry's vault > (which Hagrid gave him in SorSt) was kept by Dumbledore as a wizrd > guardian. When Sirius Black, Harry's godfather, went to Azkaban > Dumbledore stepped in as guardian placing Harry in the Dursley's > care, but keeping control of Harry's vault until Harry is of age in > the Wizarding World. > > BTW, What is Age of Consent for Wizard's? Could Harry write a will > leaving his gold to the Weasley's? > Tomato, tomato Potato, potato Let's call the whole thing off. - Cole Porter Zoe From ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 28 04:13:30 2002 From: ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com (Melanie Brackney) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:13:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: Voldie as Christ Figure Message-ID: <20020328041330.73984.qmail@web10908.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37072 As well as the resurrection (in a graveyard, of course), he has the disciples, he insists on the exclusive adoration and fidelity, he promises great rewards for his followers, including immortality. He is called 'Lord' by his people. He has been known to live inside his followers. He comes alive in a book. He is represented by a snake lifted up (see John 3: 'As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert...'). He values useless gestures of loyalty more than practical help. He calls on his followers from afar. I assume the religious right were so turned off by the 'witchcraft' that they have never quite got to this particular bomb waiting to go off - but you'd think *someone* would have twigged. To be fair, most of this could also be used to make him out as an anti-Christ, too, who is depicted in Revelation as having a fake resurrection. Voldemort was not strictly dead and, indeed, refers to rebirthing rather than resurrection. The DEs have their version of the mark of the beast. But I do wonder if JKR is in fact saying something about religion, or at least religious sects. David What that Jesus is a horrible person that liked to kill innocent people? I think that is an unfair conclusion on your part. What you did was take out little details about Jesus from the Bible and make an assumption based on them. That is an unfair and insulting judgement if you ask me. Especially considering Jesus was a peaceful man that wanted to be friends with ALL people (not just those of pure bloodedness). I personally find that you would even CONSIDER that Voledemort is a Christ figure disturbing. However, your ideas on the anti christ aspect is probably closer to what JKR is going for especially when you take into consideration that prior to taking on the identity of Lord Voldemort, Tom Riddle was a well respected and popular student of Hogwarts. Just as the Anti Christ could be. Although, this seems a bit hard to buy considering from my understanding JKR isn't planning on destoying the world in the seventh book. However, I think it's a more consistent theory than the comparison of Jesus to Voldie. Melanie --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Thu Mar 28 05:40:59 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 05:40:59 -0000 Subject: A Muggle House / Wizarding Age of Majority Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37073 Amy Z wrote: > Finwitch wrote: > > If Dobby was house-elf to the Potter-house that was *exploded* by > > Evil Voldemort, > To which Catlady responded: > > Except that the house that was exploded was a Muggle house. > ? explain? If George's statement in CoS that "House-elves come with big old manors and castles and places like that" means that House Elves are bound to the house (building) rather than to the people, then a Muggle house would not have a House ELf bound to it. The house at Godric's Hollow in which James and Lily were living in hiding, until it was blown up as a result of Voldemort's attack on the Potters, was a Muggle house. Therefore, there was not a House Elf (Dobby in Finwitch's suggestion) bound to that house, to be made homeless by its destruction. Unc Mark wrote: > BTW, What is Age of Consent for Wizard's? Could Harry write a will > leaving his gold to the Weasley's? JKR has said several times that wizards come of age at 17. In GoF, when Dumbledore says that students who are under 17 cannot apply to be their school's Champion in Triwizard Tournament, he used the phrase 'underage students'. BTW, 'Age of Consent' is not quite the same thing as 'Age of Majority'. From christi0469 at hotmail.com Thu Mar 28 06:23:07 2002 From: christi0469 at hotmail.com (christi0469) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 06:23:07 -0000 Subject: If you were Headmaster of Hogwarts... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37074 Bill wrote: > I am curious if anybody else has thought about what they would have > Harry learn if they were Headmaster of Hogwarts. I think that we can > take it as a given that at some point, probably in his seventh year, > Haryy will face Voldemort, probably alone, and only one of them (at > most) will be still alive after that. If that is the case, then I > would think that it is ESSENTIAL that Harry be given far more > preparation than he is getting now. I would not change the existing curriculum, but I would try awfully hard to get a good DADA professor. Instead of having Harry drop courses I would encourage the existing professors to emphasize anything that may be useful in the fight against Voldemort. I would not have Harry drop Quidditch or isolate him in any way. Not only would that be bad for Harry's mental state, but it would be giving into terrorism. Not a good thing. Since Sept. 11 not giving in to terrorism has been a very important topic. And the DE's are really nothing but a group of terrorists with a particularly terrifying leader. One thing I would do is start up the duelling club again, only this time with a proper teacher, optimally an Auror. I would encourage various professors, including myself, to assist in order to display a variety of techniques and approaches. This might not enable anyone to prevail in a duel against LV, but it would go far in training the students to stay cool in a crisis. Training in martial arts would be good for this as well, but might not get much support in the wizarding world. The club(s) would have to be open to all students, but could have a lower limit by year. This would be for ideological reasons as well as preventing Harry from being further set apart from his fellow students. Harry would of course be STRONGLY encouraged to sign up. There would be a risk of training future DE's, but singling out certain students to be excluded is not only unfair and unethical, but it could have the unfortunate effect of being a self-fulfilling prophesy. If possible I would encourage a mentoring relationship between the new DADA professor and Harry. It certainly was effective when Lupin held that post. Getting Professor Lupin back would go far in this regard but might not be possible for obvious reasons. There is, of course, the fact that I am not the Headmistress of any school. Not even a teacher in one. I am a substitute teacher for my daughter's preschool, but that hardly counts for anything in the scope of this discussion. Still, I think that maintaining ideals in this time of war is very important to the theme of free choice. Turning Harry into a fighting machine at the expense of the curriculum would degrade Hogwarts as a whole. At the end of GoF Dumbledore stated that everyone in the Hall would be welcomed back. I believe that statement was directed at a certain group of Slytherins as much as the foreign delegations. Possibly dangerous, but much better than alienating them and possibly nudging them toward becoming truly EVIL. Judge not lest ye be judged and all that. I was taught in catachesis class that it is (theoretically) possible to bind someone with your judgements of them, which in turn makes you culpable if you judge them incorrectly. Put simply, making judgements can bring very bad karma. I get this from my christian point of view, but I imagine that 'judge not' is a tenet of most religions. Christi From uncmark at yahoo.com Thu Mar 28 07:27:17 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 07:27:17 -0000 Subject: Wizarding Age of Majority Harry's Guardianship In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37075 > Unc Mark wrote: > > > BTW, What is Age of Consent for Wizard's? Could Harry write a will leaving his gold to the Weasley's? > > JKR has said several times that wizards come of age at 17. In GoF, > when Dumbledore says that students who are under 17 cannot apply to > be their school's Champion in Triwizard Tournament, he used the > phrase 'underage students'. > > BTW, 'Age of Consent' is not quite the same thing as 'Age of > Majority'. It's my belief then that in the absence of Sirius (Harry's godfather) Dumbledore was named as Harry's wizard guardian concerning wizard affairs (education and Gringotts gold). Think about it. Harry was placed in the Dursley's care, but on his 11th birthday a 9 foot half-giant knocks their door down. Hagrid then takes Harry against the Dursley's will. If the Dursley's had full- guardianship, that would be kidnapping. When Hagrid takes Harry to Gringotts, Hagrid has the key to Harry's vault. I assume Dumbledore gave it to him, but by what right did Dumbledore have the key? If he was not legal guardian, he had no right to it. Even if he was executor of the Potter's will, the key should have gone to the Dursley's. (Now that's a nightmare!) Even now with Harry entering 5th year, does he have ownership to his Gold? I'm pretty sure that legally Dumbledore has some say over Harry. In GofF, Molly Weasley asks Dumbledore if Harry could stay with them, not the Dursley's. Also at the beginning of GoF, Ron wrote that they pick Harry up whether or not he had permission from the Dursleys. Again it sounds like kidnapping, unless Dumbledore has Wizard Guardianship. Uncmark From ksmccormick at hotmail.com Wed Mar 27 23:48:38 2002 From: ksmccormick at hotmail.com (kscottmccormick) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:48:38 -0000 Subject: Voldemort as Christ figure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37076 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > > >And what about Voldemort--is *he* a Christ figure? He has the > resurrection if not the self-sacrifice. > To be fair, most of this could also be used to make him out as an > anti-Christ, too, who is depicted in Revelation as having a fake > resurrection. Voldemort was not strictly dead and, indeed, refers to > rebirthing rather than resurrection. > But I do wonder if JKR is in fact saying something about religion, or > at least religious sects. Yes, Rowling is definitely saying something about religion. Voldemort's rebirth, as you point out, is more the point of the story than his resurrection. Harry suffers symbolic deaths at the climaxes of the books and is reborn, assisted or accompanied twice by the phoenix, symbol of rebirth. I discuss this in my paper "The Magical Journey: Symbols of Transformation and the Occult Foundations of the Harry Potter Books" if you?re interested. It is at http://geocities.com/nopotter2001 . Ken McCormick From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Mar 28 09:30:03 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:30:03 -0000 Subject: free elves unite In-Reply-To: <016101c1d5f5$1f44f040$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37077 Laura Huntley wrote: >> Yeah, but is perpetual bondage better than death? I know it's sort of a personal thing, but if I had to choose the fate of myself and any future offspring I might have (and any of their offspring, etc.) I would like to believe I would be brave enough to go with what I believe is right, and choose death. Death lasts a long time, and it's bitter. A little corruption and, by extension, a loss of anything we hold dear (like certain amount of liberty) is possibly better than the extintion of your hole race. I don't have any children, but the general feeling is that I would not put their rights over their lives unless, of course, without those rights their lives were inhuman. And therein lies the main problem: I don't see the elves unhappy with their situation, nor particularly enslaved (read: without rights). They seem to be able to move around at will (at will indeed! They can apparate *anywhere*), since there is nothing that stops Dobby from meddling in Harry's affairs in CoS, but they CHOOSE to stay in their homes and keep everything in perfect order. I'm starting to repeat myself, but I'll say it once again: the Potterverse elves are happy, proud of their work and conditions, as a general rule (IMO) well treated by their masters and do not wish to change (in fact, having big depressions when liberated). Laura again: > I also have trouble believing the elven race viewed *itself* as too powerful and therefore put *itself* into bondage. As all the elves would have been equally powerful (and they don't seem particularly aggressive) they wouldn't have posed a threat to each other. More likely, the wizard population found them too powerful for their liking and therefore used magic, laws, etc to eventually bond them all as slaves to a certain house/family (I am sure there is some old magic to do this). Eventually, no one would know it had ever been any different, and elves and wizards alike would view this enslavement as good/normal. I think laws that are in effect in the WW, such as the law against an elf carrying a wand, are reflections of this. Somewhere back the wizards were threatened by the elves, so they destroyed that threat. I also believe such measures are being taken against other magical creatures that wizards deem a threat to their king-of-the-magical-hill status, such as dragons. > > tsk. tsk. Bad wizards. > > laura This theory is, of course, possible, but there is no more canon to support it than mine. There is, however a subtle difference between self-elected slavary and forced slavery. In any forced situation, even one that spans over generations, people REMEMBER who it started and, if they weren't happy with it when it started, their folklore and passed-down culture will reflect it. It's the fact that they freely recognize their slavery, and their insitence of staying in it, that made me think of the Atans in the first place. They both share the feeling that liberty is too much for them to carry (even Dobby is afraid of having too much of it). The fact that elves seem unagressive (or even meek) can be explained easily from my Atan-elf theory, since Atans, as long as they're not allowed to kill everyone around, are also very calmed and sunny-looking (as much as a 9 ft. tall person can look sunny-looking). It's only when you eliminate the restrictions that the killing machine reveals itself. Anyway, I insist that it's my own *theory*, a theory that fits the character of the elves well, but, anyway, quite unsupported by canon. Ama worte: > Thanks Grey Wolf, by the way, for the timeline, it > helped to organize my thoughts. > Ama You're welcomed! What timeline? ;-) (which means: I don't remember writing a timeline that could've helped your post. Then again, maybe I did and that black hole *I* call memory just isn't giving it back) Hope that helps, Grey Wolf (Once again mentioning D. Eddings in his posts, so must be careful not to overdo it. At any rate, still recomends everyone who reads this to read Eddings, since he is the best this wolf has read.) From kellybroughton at netscape.net Thu Mar 28 01:18:39 2002 From: kellybroughton at netscape.net (kellybroughton at netscape.net) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:18:39 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: If you were Headmaster of Hogwarts... Message-ID: <74AB478F.6649CF04.B13B89B9@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 37078 "mongo62aa" wrote: > >Well, yes, on a story-external basis we know that Voldemort will be >defeated. But the characters within the story do not know that. >Given the threat of Voldemort gaining power, any significant increase >in the probability of Harry defeating Voldemort would be worth >wrecking Harry's post-Hogwarts social life. This sounds harsh...it >IS harsh. But in this kind of war, to fail to do this in order to >protect the general magic community would be irresponsible. > >In addition, I don't know that the effects of this curriculum would >be all that bad. He would still have his friends, after all--and >it's not as if the regular curriculum was all that great either. >Just how much daily use would he have gotten from Divination or >Astronomy, anyways? I suspect that learning Meditation more than >makes up for the loss. In my curriculum, he is still in Gryffindor >tower, taking DADA, Potions, Transfiguration, and Charms with his >friends, so he is not totally isolated. > >Bill Just had a thought (that I should have put in my previous post!) Why focus exclusively on Harry? I know that he is pretty much the target that VM will be going for, but since I seriously doubt that Harry will be fighting VM 100% on his own, why not teach this desired curriculum to ALL the students? Everyone at Hogwarts needs to know how to survive this war, not just Harry. -kel -- __________________________________________________________________ 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 kellybroughton at netscape.net Thu Mar 28 01:11:43 2002 From: kellybroughton at netscape.net (kellybroughton at netscape.net) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:11:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: If you were Headmaster of Hogwarts... Message-ID: <54300EFF.584159B4.B13B89B9@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 37079 "grey_wolf_c" wrote: >I am a student (for a few years more, at least) and, as all students >I've ever known, I have, at some point or another, asked myself "Why do >I have to learn such-and-such class? What possible use will I find for >it?" (for example: I'm studying Computer Science. Why do I have to >learn Management Accounting?). The fact is, you sometimes need to learn >things because you may *need* them, but more importantly because you >need to learn *how to learn*. Harry will face Voldemort at some point >in the future. D'dore doesn't know the circumstances, and he's giving >Harry the broadest possible education to cover all possibilities. With >that base, Harry will be able to improvise, adapt and learn how to beat >whatever he faces. Unlike computers, the world is not a case of "if the >red light blinks, push button A. If the red light goes steady, push >buttom B, etc.". Harry will face the unknown, and he will need the >capability of learning much more knowledge itself (although a few >curses will probably come handy anyway). >--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mongo62aa" wrote: >> I am curious if anybody else has thought about what they would have >> Harry learn if they were Headmaster of Hogwarts. I think that we can >> take it as a given that at some point, probably in his seventh year, >> Haryy will face Voldemort, probably alone, and only one of them (at >> most) will be still alive after that. If that is the case, then I >> would think that it is ESSENTIAL that Harry be given far more >> preparation than he is getting now. Although I think that this IS a very interesting topic and very much worth discussing, there seems to be one thing that is forgotten: Harry needs to not only be able to survive a battle with VM, but he is also going to need skills to cope with wizarding life (assuming that he does survive). In other words, Life skills. You gotta think about (like Dumbledore) what happens *later*. -kel -- __________________________________________________________________ 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 alina at distantplace.net Thu Mar 28 02:09:07 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 21:09:07 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] James set up for a Fall? (Was Wormtail's fault - Life-debt ) References: Message-ID: <008e01c1d5fd$8c410c80$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37080 ----- Original Message ----- From: kiricat2001 To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 8:50 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] James set up for a Fall? (Was Wormtail's fault - Life-debt ) every human. However, I don't recall anyone, including Dumbledore, saying anything negative about James, with the exception of the Dursleys and Snape. And, of course, these are the people Harry despises most, with the possible exception of Draco, so any disparaging remarks they may make about James will be immediately discounted by Harry. But people have said negative things about James, you just have to read between the lines. Remember what Remus said in book 3? That the Marauders would've thought it great fun to tempt Harry into sneaking off the school grounds when it was safer for him not to. And James was a Marauder. People compared Sirius and James to Fred and George and you have to admit that as fun as Fred and George are they're likely to go to far in their fun, disregarding the feelings of people like their mother and how their actions affect those who care about them. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rosabella_rb at yahoo.com Thu Mar 28 03:46:07 2002 From: rosabella_rb at yahoo.com (rosabella_rb) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 03:46:07 -0000 Subject: HP and similarities to other books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37081 In exactly what sense where the two books similar? And speaking of similarities, the first time I read HP it seemed extremely similar to "The Worst Witch" books (I can't remember the author's name...anybody does) which I read more than 10 years ago. A school for witches (an all girl's school) which is also a castle, a main character (female called Mildred) who is always breaking the rules and getting in trouble (but she's way more innocent and with worse luck than HP...he kind of reminds me of Neville), a dreaded teacher with dark hair and a long nose (called Miss Hardbroom, who reminds me suspiciously of Snape), Mildred's archenemy is a girl with blonde hair called Ethel (Draco anyone? only in this book Ethel is top of the class)... but my point is, I don't think Rowling intentionally pinched anybodies ideas, perhaps she did read a lot and a lot of what she read ended up spilling into her plot... From ProfSnapeFan at aol.com Thu Mar 28 03:50:27 2002 From: ProfSnapeFan at aol.com (ProfSnapeFan at aol.com) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:50:27 EST Subject: Greetings and Dumbledore Question Message-ID: <72.1a03f6d8.29d3ed03@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37082 First off, hello to everyone. I joined a couple weeks ago and have been lurking getting the flavor of the group. I must say it is extremely refreshing to "listen" to intelligent discussion about the HP books and characters as opposed to other groups I've lurked in for awhile before unsubscribing. Anyway enough of an introduction I suppose, and my apologies if the following topic has already been addressed. One thing has always perplexed me about the books, and that is Dumbledore seems to know things that are going to happen, and lets Harry face them either alone, or perhaps with Ron & Hermione. I'm thinking right now of the basilisk in the hidden chamber. Surely Dumbledore knew it was there, could he have not destroyed it himself? And giving him the invisibility cloak, and telling him about the Mirror of erised. There are other things as well, it just boils down to being confusing that Dumbledore can let Harry endure so many life threatening occurences with an apparent knowledge of at least part of them. Do you guys think Dumbledore is really the "all-knowing" type, knowing not only what Harry will face but also that he will be victorious, perhaps letting him build up his power and confidence for an ultimate battle with Voldemort? Or could he really be as surprised as everyone else is when the events happen? Well what a long first post huh? Joy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eclipse02134 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 28 06:00:42 2002 From: eclipse02134 at yahoo.com (Eclipse) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:00:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: If you were Headmaster of Hogwarts... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020328060042.52436.qmail@web20810.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37083 > However, I do believe that he *and* Hermione and Ron > need some > *extra* training. Maybe something along the lines > of Harry's > training with Lupin and the boggart, after school > for an hour or two, > once or twice a week. > -M at RY- > I agree that Hermione and Ron should share any extra lessons that Harry has. First it would give him someone to study with. Second I can't see them letting Harry go after Voldemort by himself. He would at least need someone to keep the Death Eaters away. Thirdly by being Harry's best friends, they have signed up to be bait or to be killed to hurt Harry. They will most likely need to learn to defend themselves all most as much as Harry will. Eclipse __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards http://movies.yahoo.com/ From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Mar 28 09:44:08 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 04:44:08 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] More Harry as Saviour Message-ID: <46.24dae606.29d43fe8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37084 In a message dated 27/03/02 05:30:59 GMT Standard Time, lterrellgiii at icqmail.com writes: > I think I just stumbled across something that, at the very least, interested > me. > Within the Christian church, there is much importance assigned to the idea > of Christ's blood as a redeeming and rebirthing substance. I know its > figurative, but by his blood (his sacrifice) we gain, in their view, > immortality. > Lord Voldemort was regenerated (reborn) because of the BLOOD of his foe > (amongst other wonderful ingredients).... HARRY! Another nod towards Harry > being a Christ figure? > I'm not sure if there is any real significance here, but it makes for an > interesting note, at least. > Sorry this reply is a bit late. I was having problems with my AOL connection yesterday. Obviously the redemptive power of the Saviour's blood is a major theme in Christianity (and incidentally, not all Christians view this as figurative), but there are some very significant differences. The blood of Christ's sacrifice was *willingly* given, whereas, the incantation used by Wormtail specifically states that Harry's is the blood of the enemy, forcibly taken. It is Wormtail, the servant, who *willingly* gives flesh. Again, there is an inverse parallel, as Christ speaks of himself as the servant. Now if there is a deliberate Christian parallel here, I think the differences are such that ultimately Voldemort will find that the formula does not work (similar to the speculation regarding the gleam - Dumbledore knows that there is a fault in the use of Harry's blood). It reminds me of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, where The White Witch knows the Deep Magic but Aslan knows a still older magic which assures his triumph over her. I think also that there may be parallels between the use of Harry's blood as a commodity with magical properties and the similar corrupt mediaeval use of relics. Whereas many did make sincere pilgrimage and venerate relics, there was also a thriving, cynical trade in false relics, exploiting the vulnerability and gullability of people desperate for salvation, or cures for illness etc. What I am trying to say is that I think ultimately, JKR will make the point that immortality is not something that you can buy (or steal!). It cannot be gained through cynical, self-seeking activities, but is a gift. (Granted, I have a problem here fitting in the Flamels). The Philosopher's Stone was guarded in such a way that no-one who wanted the stone for his own benefit could get it, which may be a hint at her attitude. Personally, I am not convinced that the series *will* play out as a Christian allegory, still less that Harry is a Christ figure, although I can see that it might work out this way. The series is certainly suffused with Christian nuance, however. If JKR is more religious than we had been led to suppose, then that would certainly explain it. To me, Dumbledore is the most obvious parallel, (nearly) omniscient, wise, moves in extremely mysterious ways, embodies (in his grey moments) those problems of *why does a just God let evil/injustice etc, etc happen*, powerful and awe-inspiring, but approachable (and twinkling!). He even looks like the picture of God I drew in my RE book when I was 7!) Eloise (who is glad, Eileen, to note that she wasn't the only one thinking about HP during the Palm Sunday service. I was Caiaphas in the dramatic reading of the Passion and got to wondering whether he or Pilate was more like Cornelius Fudge!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Mar 28 10:05:02 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:05:02 -0000 Subject: Greetings and Dumbledore Question In-Reply-To: <72.1a03f6d8.29d3ed03@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37085 Joy wrote: >> First off, hello to everyone. I joined a couple weeks ago and have been lurking getting the flavor of the group. I must say it is extremely refreshing to "listen" to intelligent discussion about the HP books and characters as opposed to other groups I've lurked in for awhile before unsubscribing. Welcomed to the lists! I hope you enjoy your stay > Anyway enough of an introduction I suppose, and my apologies if the following topic has already been addressed. One thing has always perplexed me about the books, and that is Dumbledore seems to know things that are going to happen, and lets Harry face them either alone, or perhaps with Ron & Hermione. I'm thinking right now of the basilisk in the hidden chamber. Surely Dumbledore knew it was there, could he have not destroyed it himself? And giving him the invisibility cloak, and telling him about the Mirror of erised. There are other things as well, it just boils down to being confusing that Dumbledore can let Harry endure so many life threatening occurences with an apparent knowledge of at least part of them. Do you guys think Dumbledore is really the "all-knowing" type, knowing not only what Harry will face but also that he will be victorious, perhaps letting him build up his power and confidence for an ultimate battle with Voldemort? Or could he really be as surprised as everyone else is when the events happen? > > Well what a long first post huh? > > Joy Dumbledore looks like he knows everything at first glance, but there are numerous situations which demonstrate otherwise. You ask, for example, why he doesn't attack the basilisk. For starters, he doesn't know where the entrance to the secret chamber is, and even if he knew, you need parseltongue to enter. Other examples: for the longest time (all of GoF) he doesn't realise that there's a hidden DE in the school. He only discovers it when Crouch Jr. makes a big personality error: taking away Harry from D'dores view, right at the end (after the graveyard scene). Note that it takes very little, however, to make D'dore start to discover things. Again: In PS, it looks like he's aware during the whole book that someone is trying to steal the stone, but nontheless he leaves the school because of a false letter. So no, I do not think D'dore is the all-knowing type. He recognizes the potential of Harry and allows him to develop it, but I do not think that most of the time he knows what the trio is planning or doing. IIRC, there is one time he actually says "...which demonstrates that sometimes, everyone has to swallow his own words" (liberal translation). D'dore says it after threatening Harry with expulsion if he did something, when doing that thing is what saves the day. (Yes, I know I don't remeber the details. Could s.o. please look up the canon for me? My books are currectly unavailable). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Mar 28 10:33:30 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 05:33:30 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Peter/ Death and Justice Message-ID: <11a.e57622c.29d44b7a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37086 In a message dated 27/03/02 18:40:37 GMT Standard Time, MmeBurgess at msn.com writes: > I say: > I believe that DG might be confusing the issue here to a certain extent. > What "they" (Remus and Sirius) did not know was what Peter would do. Yes, > they knew he was dangerous, yes, they knew he had contributed to the deaths > of James and Lily, but there was no inidication while he was still in rat > form that he was going back to Voldemort to kill many more. Even after he > was transformed and had told his story, while they might suspect what he > was planning to do, they did not KNOW it. > I agree. As far as Sirius was concerned, Pettigrew was a weak, self-interested little rat, who would not go back to Voldemort unless he was sure that he was once again the biggest bully in the playground. We cannot blame Sirius and Lupin for not predicting that Pettigrew was to go back to him in his weakened form and particularly not for failing to realise that he would be the agent who restored him to power. I think Marianne has it right: >I believe that >Peter has no center. Maybe he's amoral, maybe he's completely self- >centered and ego-driven. I'm not sure how to describe it. I think >that his own self-interest/self-preservation is the most important >motiviation he has. >He's not so good in school? Then he aligns himself with three very >bright boys who can and will help him out. And, maybe he's not such >a weak wizard; maybe he's lazy, but can get away with it because he's >got these friends who will carry him along with them. >Times are tough and scary? He aligns himself with the side he thinks >is most likely to win the war. Isn't this exactly the picture of evil/darkness that some of us have been building up? The contrast between *amorality* of the Dark side and the enlightened acknowledgement of and fight against evil of the Light side. Yet again, we have a character who does evil not out of any mistaken conviction that what he does is right, but out of sheer self-interest, because it's easier and more profitable than standing up for right - if he can even recognise it. Whilst I'm in the area, I wanted to challenge the validity of DG's Hitler analogy. >But let's tweak the example a little bit. At the risk of invoking >Godwin's law, let's pretend that 1) I'm French 2) my yard is in France >3) It's 1941 and 4) that's Adolf Hitler lying unarmed in my backyard. The problem I have is that you're using a *wartime* analogy. If the Shack incident had happened during the last (or even the next) Voldy war, then I think it might have had some validity, but at the time it did happen, theoretically, at least, Voldemort was at bay, there was no war going on and citizens taking the law into their own hands would be likely to get what was coming to them (and rightly so, IMO, although I suspect the MoM would go over the top by my standards). Situations of war change both our perceptions of our duties and the responsibilities which society gives us. As far as the MoM was concerned, the only state of emergency concerned the escape of Black and even Snape intended to turn him over to the Dementors for what would have been, officially at least, 'justice'. Another failure of the analogy is, to my mind, that although as a Frenchman in 1941, I would know what he had done to my country, I would not know anything like the full extent of the evil that was to be played out. (Although now I come to think about it, it works from *my* POV: Sirius and Lupin only knew part of the story, not how it would play out.) Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Mar 28 11:02:03 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (edblanning) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:02:03 -0000 Subject: Greetings and Dumbledore Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37087 Grey Wolf: (answering a post from Joy on which I would like to comment, but really I must get on with things, so I'll just extend the hand of friendship to another Snapefan!) > So no, I do not think D'dore is the all-knowing type. He recognizes the > potential of Harry and allows him to develop it, but I do not think > that most of the time he knows what the trio is planning or doing. > IIRC, there is one time he actually says "...which demonstrates that > sometimes, everyone has to swallow his own words" (liberal > translation). D'dore says it after threatening Harry with expulsion if > he did something, when doing that thing is what saves the day. (Yes, I > know I don't remeber the details. Could s.o. please look up the canon > for me? My books are currectly unavailable). It's the end of CoS (at the beginning of which they have been warned against further rule-breaking, having arrived in the Flying Ford Anglia): 'I seem to remember telling you both that I would have to expel you if you broke any more school rules,' said Dumbledore. Ron opened his mouth in horror. 'Which goes to show that the best of us must sometimes eat our words,' Dumbledore went on, smiling. (And goes on to give rewards, house points.) Eloise From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Mar 28 12:08:45 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 07:08:45 -0500 Subject: Apology Message-ID: <3691F192.0702E44B.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 37088 In my post on Voldemort as a Christ figure, I inadvertently used the term 'Religious Right' as a shorthand for those who would ban the use of Harry Potter in publicly funded fora on specifically Christian grounds. I do know that not all Christians, or religious people generally, on the political right, are of this persuasion, and indeed, some are Harry Potter fans. Please accept my apologies for this sloppy use of language, and the sloppy thought behind it. 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 lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com Thu Mar 28 12:26:44 2002 From: lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com (Ms Lizard Gizzard) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 04:26:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort as Christ figure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020328122644.12408.qmail@web13501.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37089 --- davewitley wrote: > >And what about Voldemort--is *he* a Christ figure? > He has the resurrection if not the self-sacrifice. > To be fair, most of this could also be used to make > him out as an > anti-Christ, too, who is depicted in Revelation as > having a fake > resurrection. Voldemort was not strictly dead and, > indeed, refers to > rebirthing rather than resurrection. The DEs have > their version of > the mark of the beast. > Yeah, I think anti-christ is the right answer here (if we must get into biblical metaphors.) A messiah comes to save the people, to free them from bondage, whether sin or opression. Voldemort comes with promises of power and immortality, but with loyalty comes pain and sacrifice. LizGiz A member of the Religious Right who does not seek to ban HP (And I saw your apology, Dave. Thanks for the clarification.) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards http://movies.yahoo.com/ From gwynyth at drizzle.com Thu Mar 28 12:26:40 2002 From: gwynyth at drizzle.com (Jenett) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 06:26:40 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who bought the Nimbus? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37090 At 11:51 PM +0000 3/27/02, saintbacchus wrote: >Jenett writes: > >I'm a graduate of the American public school system, >and we had those kinds of treats too - as carrots for >either joining extracurricular groups or achieving >some kind of academic or extracurricular achievement. >But the point is that the reward was there for anyone >who wanted to work for it, not just as a prize for >being an orphan or whatever. Some of those funds were things like spending money for financial aid students. (The few students who were on full financial aid also got a fair bit of spending money. It was something like $150 or $200 a month, and that was 10 years ago now.) Harry doesn't get the broom until he's demonstrated native talent and hard work, remember. He doesn't get handed it for being an orphan. He shows he's capable of earning it, the same way the friend I had who was on full financial aid in boarding school earned his spending money and tuition by being both intelligent and hard working (if at something of a disadvantage, as he'd come from a fairly poor school system originally.) > ><< >The college I went to charged about $100 a student as >a student activities fee - this money went into a >general activities fund, and student groups were >funded out of it (groups submitted a desired budget, >and via a stated process and preferences, got a >certain percentage of that budget to work with.) >>> > >That's how my college works, too; but that's different, >as it does in fact benefit the whole student body - or >at least, those who choose to make use of the activities. Yes, but depending on the club budget, it might only benefit a very small number. The club whose budget I was most involved with (the local Society for Creative Anachronism college branch) had a budget in the realm of $2,000 the last few years I was in school. For between 10 and 15 functionally active members. There were other groups where the benefit gained by the students were substantially greater than that given into the fund. Now, theoretically, any student could join. But realistically, there were limitations on who might be interested in joining the group, how active they might be, and so on. If that's not clear enough for you: the same funding process was used for several student run musical groups and a drama group, so that not everyone who wished to be involved was chosen to be involved. It's fairly clear to me from the books that the entire school *enjoys* there being Quidditch, and that they're eager for their house team to do well, the same way most folks are probably glad that someone on campus is doing good music and drama. But still, only a fairly limited number of kids actually participate. Same way it was in college. I knew plenty of people who didn't really benefit from their student activities fees. > ><< >Or perhaps (and note: we *don't* know if students pay >tuition, after all, which removes a lot of your >arguments about "Oh, Malfoy would find it so unfair...": >if no one pays tuition, and there's extra money left >over from the available funds there's no problem >spending that extra, for example) they've simply >designated some bits of the budget to house activities. >>> > >Are you suggesting that Harry Potter is a house activity? No, I'm suggesting that Quidditch is. And we *just don't know* if there might be specific funds for Quidditch or at house discretion. I'd rather assume there are ethical solutions here than that the automatic assumption is that there's unethical behavior going on. >And since that's not what I said, I'll agree. What I >said is that it's unethical to use school money to buy >a broom that belongs to HARRY and not the team. As >Uncmark put it, "spending house funds on a personal >broom for one student would be like a school's entire >athletic budget on a $5000 shoes for one member of the >team." And no, I don't think it really matters if the >$5000 was a drop in the bucket. Then why say "Entire budget?" I don't consider it to be wrong as long as the same thing can be done for any other students it's necessary for as well. Spending the entire budget on one student is wrong. Spending a sum of money on a student, when you *could* provide the same benefit to other students if required, and are not taking any resources away from accesss for other students is another question. Now, it's rare that any modern school can do that for a large sum of money: but we just don't know enough about Hogwarts finances to know whether this is a problem. I don't think it's fair to completley dismiss it as an ethical option, though. Here's another example: I work in a high school library. We're pretty willing to go out of our way to buy a book that only one student or teacher wants/is going to use/etc as long as it's of reasonable cost. There's a *chance* that some other student might find it useful, but sometimes in these situations, it's something someone wants for a very specific project, and it might never be used again. We have a very respectable budget for a library our size. Buying one book does not really limit our ability to buy other books for other students. (Again, as long as we're talking about reasonable costs) The only difference is the 'keeping the broom' part. We have no way of knowing if Harry had not had the Nimbus broken, that if/when he replaced it, he might have been asked to donate it to the team, thus returning it to school use. It's only because it got broken before its expected retirement that this might not have happened. A little odd, but I don't think Harry would have huge problems with it, unless he wanted to give it to Ron and Ron would take it. >The comment about the broom not being educational was >meant to point out that Harry doesn't really *need* a >broom. It would be different if he were too poor to >buy quills and ink, or something. Obviously, the >school would have to step in at that point. There's different issues of need: Quidditch gives Harry a way to feel like he fits into to the wizarding world, that what he does actually *matters* to other people, that he's more than a cipher who gets ignored or treated oddly because he's the Boy Who Lived *and* gives him something to be known for that is his own direct doing, not as a result of something he barely remembers. I don't know. I think the educational and social benefits of giving Harry a broom (once he'd demonstrated excellent natural talent) might very well be considered to be very important to his education and development. The same way that counselling or assistance with medication or any other psychological treatment might be assisted by a school in some circumstances. Not necessarily a muggle solution - but I can certainly see the logic chain working, again, once his native talent were obvious. Again, just because most modern schools don't have unlimited resources to use that kind of solution doesn't automatically make it unethical. If they *do* have the resources to provide that kind of support to a variety of students, then maybe they do - and we just haven't seen it happen to anyone besides Harry, really. (And to Neville, to some extent, but the Neville stuff doesn't really need to involve supplying equipment so much as commentary and support) In short: we do not know if there might not be sums available *specifically for the purpose of providing brooms if necessary*, or for house benefit with enough surplus that providing the broom won't take away from anyone else. Or if it were decided that this was beneficial to Harry's development and mental health in other ways, and worth funding for that reason. Or if it came from personal funds. I'd prefer to assume that there *is* an ethical and aboveboard reason behind the gift, rather than assuming that any large gift has to short someone else or be unethical. I've simply been trying to point out ways or reasons that might be true. -Jenett -- ----- gwynyth at drizzle.com ******* gleewood at gleewood.org ------ "My friend, there is a fine line between coincidence and fate" Ardeth Bay - _The Mummy Returns_ -------------------- http://gleewood.org/ -------------------- From philnel at ksu.edu Thu Mar 28 14:12:28 2002 From: philnel at ksu.edu (Philip Nel) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 08:12:28 -0600 Subject: Voldemort as Christ figure; Ira, not Cole References: <1017309906.3119.95364.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <3CA324CC.A374B821@ksu.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 37091 Dear HPforGrownups listmembers, While it's true that (as CMC points out) the phoenix is a symbol of resurrection, it (he) is also a character in E. Nesbit's _The Phoenix and the Carpet_. His symbolic value may be as likely tied to E. Nesbit as to Christian symbolism. Indeed, in E. Nesbit's novel, the phoenix arrives in the children's lives just after Guy Fawkes' Day, leading one to speculate that Rowling's phoenix may be named Fawkes in homage to Nesbit's. (As I'm sure most listserv participants know, Rowling often cites E. Nesbit as a childhood favorite -- in the _O Magazine_ piece [Jan. 2001], for example, she specifically expresses admiration for Oswald, the narrator of _The Story of the Treasure-Seekers_.) So, what I'm suggesting here is, yep, the Christian allegories do intersect with Rowling's series, but Fawkes the Phoenix says as much about Rowling's debt to Nesbit as it does about anything else. Re: > Tomato, tomato > Potato, potato > > Let's call the whole thing off. > > - Cole Porter Actually, the lyric is by Ira Gershwin (music by his brother George). Best, Phil -- Philip Nel Assistant Professor Department of English Denison Hall Kansas State University Manhattan, KS 66506-0701 U.S.A. ----------------------------------------- http://www.ksu.edu/english/nelp/ philnel at ksu.edu From ProfSnapeFan at aol.com Thu Mar 28 14:00:18 2002 From: ProfSnapeFan at aol.com (ProfSnapeFan at aol.com) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:00:18 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Greetings and Dumbledore Question Message-ID: <138.bc420f0.29d47bf2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37092 In a message dated 3/28/2002 5:08:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, greywolf1 at jazzfree.com writes: > So no, I do not think D'dore is the all-knowing type. He recognizes the > potential of Harry and allows him to develop it, but I do not think > that most of the time he knows what the trio is planning or doing. > IIRC, there is one time he actually says "...which demonstrates that > sometimes, everyone has to swallow his own words" (liberal > translation). D'dore says it after threatening Harry with expulsion if > he did something, when doing that thing is what saves the day. Thanks for that thoughtful response, I guess it is possible I was sucked in by the thought that Dumbledore, being referred to as the greatest wizard alive, also meant that he was the all-knowing, all seeing type. However JKR does ascribe many human tendencies to all the characters, so I suppose it's possible that D'Dore being so powerful does not equate with his cognitive state. *lightbulb coming on* -- just remembered how it's been referred to more than once that aside from being so powerful he's slightly "mad", which could apply to this question I suppose. Now he's changed in my vision to remind me of a sociology prof I once had, who was a brilliant teacher, but outside of the classroom he was rather absentminded, etc. Not that I'm saying D'Dore is absentminded, just drawing the equation that powerful might not = being aware of every occurrence on Hogwarts grounds. Hmmm food for thought. And thanks for the insight! Joy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ProfSnapeFan at aol.com Thu Mar 28 14:14:00 2002 From: ProfSnapeFan at aol.com (ProfSnapeFan at aol.com) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:14:00 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who bought the Nimbus? Message-ID: <10d.fcb1e66.29d47f28@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37093 General post not aimed at anyones response in general because though I've been following the debate with much interest as to how the Nimbus was provided, I've deleted emails with names/posts, etc. Just wanted to throw in that I tended to agree with the idea that McGonagall bought it personally for him. I don't know how the school is funded, tuition has never been mentioned, and I would think that would have been an issue brought out in first book, since Harry got money from his vault for books and supplies, but nothing was ever said about him giving it to the school. Unless he's on a full scholarship and doesn't know it :-). But back to the subject at hand, McGonagall said Snape was being insufferable about rubbing her nose in Gryffindors constant defeat (I don't have the exact reference, all my books are out on loan right now). Though I love the character the books have made it clear he's not a nice guy and can be very scathing, I can only imagine how 7 years of his bragging about Slytherin winning Quidditch might build up, even to the fair minded McG. So would it be inconceivable that she was so fed up with with his behavior re: Quidditch that she was willing to buy the broom for Harry herself to wipe that smug grin off Snapes face? We know nothing of her financial resources, she could be living on a teachers salary or could have a large savings stashed away. Anyway that's the way I've always figured it. Joy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ladjables at yahoo.com Thu Mar 28 19:03:45 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:03:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Free Elves Unite?/Harry as Saviour In-Reply-To: <3CA22D69.D62734CB@erols.com> Message-ID: <20020328190345.99106.qmail@web20402.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37094 --- Margaret Dean wrote: > > My feeling on the house-elves is that JKR is setting > us up to find out that neither Ron's nor Hermione's > knee-jerk reaction is the whole story. Ron, of > course, is our standard pointer toward the received > wisdom of the wizarding world, because he's been > brought up in a wizarding family: House Elves like > it that way and besides, we've =always= done it like > that. Hermione here represents the (current) > received wisdom of the muggle world: Work without > pay is slavery and slavery is Wrong Wrong Wrong. > > My personal experience (and my estimate of JKR as a > writer) lead me to espouse, in this case, Pat Wrede > (?)'s dictum: It's Not That Simple. Ever. And I > will be =very= interested to see how the > ramifications of this work out. This is a very sensible opinion. For the sake of argument, however, I'm stealing Margaret's motto, and applying it to Grey Wolf's thoughts: > The problem with that paralellism [house- > elfs=slaves]...is that all known groups that at one > time or another have been prosecuted *desired* to be > free and equal and have rights, etc. It's not that simple, Grey Wolf! According to Dobby, house-elfs ARE exploited: In CoS, US Edition, p. 177, significance of Dobby's pillowcase : "tis a mark of the house-elf's enslavement, sir." Ibid, p.178, "Dobby remembers how it was when You-Know-Who was at the height of his powers, sir! We house-elfs were treated like vermin, sir!" In GoF, US Edition, p 380, Dobby explains, "'Tis part of the house-elf's enslavement sir. We keeps their secrets and our silence sir. We upholds the family's honor, and we never speaks ill of them..." Yet, they do not demand better treatment, and we still don't know why. OK, I'm going ahead as I usually do with my thoughts. You're not going to find a realistic example of any people who were postively cheerful about enslavement like the House-elfs. I think the point is that slavery is often psychological, not just physical. The lyrics from Bob Marley's Redemption Song come to mind: "emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds". Even after official emancipation, ex-slaves did not immediately adopt the attitude that they were free. It's not like they were treated any differently. And for the first time, they had to define themselves in terms of free men, not slaves, which didn't gel with any identity they had ever had known before. The transition actually took over a century, and continues today, not just because of institutional racism, but because of the stumbling block that is mental bondage. It seems to me JKR grasps the concept of mental bondage very well with the House-Elfs, so that even though we don't have a precise historical context, the point is driven home that the the plight of the House-Elfs mirrors the effects of colonial slavery. Not only are they enslaved, but they believe they deserve to be enslaved, and convince themselves that they are happy because they are afraid of stepping outside their clearly defined world and going it on their own. What's safe is comfortable. Freedom is unknown, and therefore frightening. Then along comes Dobby, whose rebelliousness highlights this situation. Plato's myth of the cave comes to mind: the men are bound and kneeling, facing the cave wall. Remember what happened when the man who was able to free himself returned and explained that the shadows on the wall were nothing compared to the real thing? That the world is actually far more wonderful that the shadowy construct they were used to? It is frightening when conventions are challenged, and the idea of exchanging them for the unknown is often rejected, with horrible results. Gadflies get swatted. Oooh, I hope I haven't predicted Dobby's fate here! Grey Wolf: > 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!). The House-Elfs don't strike me as a proud race at all; they are too servile. Winky is just pathetic. I agree Hermione has to be careful. Bless her heart, she really believes the house-elfs are brainwashed and need her help, but this can be interpreted as paternalistic, and that won't help the house-elfs. The impetus for change has to come from within, if the house-elfs are ever to learn not to depend on wizards, and develop dignity and self-respect. Hermione CANNOT be their saviour. Can't you just see the elves all latching on to her? That's why Dobby, as their equal, is important. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with the elves looking after wizarding families and their homes, or working in Hogwarts' kitchens. We could say they represent the very best of the hospitality industry! Dobby and Winky could even work with Madam Rosmerta in the Three Broomsticks, as waiters, or at a wizard hotel in Brighton! But they're not actually treated like Madam Rosmerta are they? What's with the filthy pillowcases, and the ironing of hands(or was it ears?), and the banging of heads on walls? Taking care of people does NOT require servility. Winky can learn, for example, to take pleasure in her job without it depriving her of her independence. I have more to say on this, but I'll save it for another post. I'm not picking on you, Grey Wolf, just suggesting alternatives to house-elf treatment! Grey Wolf (on Harry as saviour): Unlike JesusChrist case, I think that resurrection would only devalue Harry's efforts (and the whole siries). However, I can accept that he's gravely injured by the end of the figth (I can even see the title of that last chapter: "The boy who lived", bringing everything to a nice cycle), with some other major charater dying in very useful self-sacrifice that helps Harry win. R.I.C.K.'S.T.H.E.B.O.S.S, anyone? (Ron Identified with the Chess Knigth: Surpasses his Triunfant, Heroic or Excelent Brothers Only by Self-Sacrifice) Grey Wolf, filling in for Tabouli's Acronym-machine while she's on holiday... R.I.C.K.'S.T.H.E.B.O.S.S.? S.O.P.E? Yikes. Tabouli's gonna kick our hineys when she gets back. Ama __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards http://movies.yahoo.com/ From trog at wincom.net Thu Mar 28 19:20:28 2002 From: trog at wincom.net (talondg) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 19:20:28 -0000 Subject: Free Elves Unite?/Harry as Saviour In-Reply-To: <20020328190345.99106.qmail@web20402.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37095 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., ladjables wrote: > It seems to me JKR grasps the concept of mental > bondage very well with the House-Elfs, so that even > though we don't have a precise historical context, the > point is driven home that the the plight of the > House-Elfs mirrors the effects of colonial slavery. Well, maybe. Or maybe the House-Elves have a distinct (if somewhat alien) culture that simply doesn't map into the Western sensibilities of Hermonie, and Hermonie's efforts to force her interpretation of their "plight" onto the Hogwarts House-Elves instead mirrors Western intrusions into other cultures? Perhaps Dobby really _is_ a degenerate from a House-Elf point of view. Certainly all the HEs at Hogwarts view him this way. And while a HE in the employ of a DE is likely to be poorly treated, I don't think the Hogwarts' elves are. Hogwarts seems to be House-Elf heaven. DG From voicelady at mymailstation.com Thu Mar 28 20:13:54 2002 From: voicelady at mymailstation.com (voicelady) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:13:54 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] HP and similarities to other books Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37096 wibble wrote: "By the way, I found there were also a couple of very similar ideas to Eoin Colfer's Artemis Fowl too." You think so? While I enjoyed Artemis Fowl (I've got a signed copy, btw), I didn't really find them that similar. Artemis, while the "hero" of the book, I found to be more of an antagonist rather than protagonist. Harry is much more likeable. Also, not to get into too much hot water, though Harry is brave and determined, Artemis is a heckuva lot smarter, more clever, and far more worldly. I think he's probably even brighter than Hermione. I'll have to read the other book. It sounds enjoyable, and I'll enjoy finding the HP comparisons. Welcome to the group! Jeralyn, the Voicelady - emerging briefly. From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Mar 28 21:32:00 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:32:00 -0000 Subject: Free Elves Unite? In-Reply-To: <20020328190345.99106.qmail@web20402.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37097 Ama wrote: > It's not that simple, Grey Wolf! According to Dobby, > house-elfs ARE exploited: > In CoS, US Edition, p. 177, significance of Dobby's > pillowcase : "tis a mark of the house-elf's > enslavement, sir." > Ibid, p.178, "Dobby remembers how it was when > You-Know-Who was at the height of his powers, sir! We > house-elfs were treated like vermin, sir!" > In GoF, US Edition, p 380, Dobby explains, "'Tis part > of the house-elf's enslavement sir. We keeps their > secrets and our silence sir. We upholds the family's > honor, and we never speaks ill of them..." Back to the line of fire, it seems... Anyway, I *know* it's not that simple. As long as the elves are mistreated by their owners, their situation will be unfair. I know that some elves are being exploited, although we've only got one example, Dobby (notice that, appart from forcing Winky to go to high places, she's never been mistreated, and that was *her* idea in the first place). Furthermore, that example is not true anymore, since Dobby was liberated from the Malfoy. The fact that Dobby mentions that elves were oppresed during Voldemort's reign sort of lends credence to the idea that *right now* they are NOT being mistreated by their families. I mentioned (in one of the half-dozen posts I've writen on this thread) that elves are indeed expected to keep secrets, but that that particular condition isn't oppresion: all employees are supposed to keep the secrets they may learn from their superiors/employers/masters/ etc. To some point, it's also aplicable to honour (think of an employee of a company: his actions affect the company's reputation, and thus is expected to uphold it). Nevertheless, lets assume that many elves are being mistreated as a matter of fact in the years after Voldemorts fall. Even if that is the case, the point I'm trying to make on these posts is that _liberating the elves is not an adequate solution_. It would cause them too much pain. If misstreatment of the elves is really common, some laws should be made (and enforced) to protect them from cruel masters, but, in any case, liberating the elves *would cause them too much pain*. Ama again: > It seems to me JKR grasps the concept of mental > bondage very well with the House-Elfs, so that even > though we don't have a precise historical context, the > point is driven home that the the plight of the > House-Elfs mirrors the effects of colonial slavery. > Not only are they enslaved, but they believe they > deserve to be enslaved, and convince themselves that > they are happy because they are afraid of stepping > outside their clearly defined world and going it on > their own. What's safe is comfortable. Freedom is > unknown, and therefore frightening. Then along comes > Dobby, whose rebelliousness highlights this situation. You've hitted the exact weak point of my theory: the possibility that elves do not want freedom because they've been brainwashed and/or are too scared of freedom. (Believe it or not, I have known this since the beginning. I wasn't going to make things easier for you by pointing it out, though :-) ). If that is the case, then the elves must be liberated and given psicological help to recover their free will. However, you have to work on the premise that they have been brainwashed. There are other possibilities: auto-enslavement because of mortal danger (my favourite), or that they simply like being slaves (Okham's razor). If we ever get a detailed explanation of the origins of the elves's enslavement, we will probably be able to go back on the subject (Note: if anyone sees any other possibility, please tell) Ama once more: > The House-Elfs don't strike me as a proud race at all; > they are too servile. Winky is just pathetic. I > agree Hermione has to be careful. Bless her heart, she > really believes the house-elfs are brainwashed and > need her help, but this can be interpreted as > paternalistic, and that won't help the house-elfs. > The impetus for change has to come from within, if the > house-elfs are ever to learn not to depend on wizards, > and develop dignity and self-respect. Hermione CANNOT > be their saviour. Can't you just see the elves all > latching on to her? That's why Dobby, as their equal, > is important. You're overlooking something: it's true that Winky comes off as pathetic once she's been liberated, but that's precisly the sort of damage I'm trying to spare them from. Once or twice, we see what, IMO, is the real personality under the tears: when she proudly defends her master. In those moments, Winky is proud, defiant and as heoric as any other character can be. She would cross fire to defend him. The elves HAVE self-respect. Trouble is, it's not in a form easily understandable by us (see DG's point at the end). You mention that they depend on wizards, but I don't see that. They want to serve wizards, but are totally independent from them (to the point of self-assigning punishment!). I could see the situation taken to the extreme: the master dies while he's sleeping, and the house-elf doesn't realise, so he continues to do all the work for days until his master's body becomes too "fragant" to ignore. I do, however, believe just as you (and Hermione) that, if elves are to want to be liberated, it's going to spawn from Dobby's example, and that the only way that liberation can take place without having half the elf population become insane wih grief is that they see how they can be free and happy at the same time (supposing, of course, that Dobby is not as eccentric as I believe he is, and thus that the other elves can be like him). Ama: > Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with the elves > looking after wizarding families and their homes, or > working in Hogwarts' kitchens. We could say they > represent the very best of the hospitality industry! > Dobby and Winky could even work with Madam Rosmerta in > the Three Broomsticks, as waiters, or at a wizard > hotel in Brighton! But they're not actually treated > like Madam Rosmerta are they? What's with the filthy > pillowcases, and the ironing of hands(or was it > ears?), and the banging of heads on walls? Taking > care of people does NOT require servility. Winky can > learn, for example, to take pleasure in her job > without it depriving her of her independence. I have > more to say on this, but I'll save it for another > post. I'm not picking on you, Grey Wolf, just > suggesting alternatives to house-elf treatment! I haven't felt offended at any point by your oppinions (I'm having enough trouble as it is trying to defend MY position against all I believe in, like Constitutional Rigths and Basic Liberties and the like). I insist, however, that, although of course they could do the work they do now while being free, that freedom would just be something signed on a paper, since I believe that they wouldn't WANT to be free. Thus, if Hermione managed the MoM to pass a law declaring all elves free, they would inmediately go back to their old jobs, donate all their pays to some cause or another, and continue being slaves. Ama one last time: > R.I.C.K.'S.T.H.E.B.O.S.S.? S.O.P.E? Yikes. Tabouli's > gonna kick our hineys when she gets back. > Ama Well, we'll just have to make sure she doesn't know about it, won't we? ;-) ::wink, wink:: DG wrote: > Or maybe the House-Elves have a distinct (if somewhat alien) culture > that simply doesn't map into the Western sensibilities of Hermione, > and Hermione's efforts to force her interpretation of their "plight" > onto the Hogwarts House-Elves instead mirrors Western intrusions into > other cultures? > > Perhaps Dobby really _is_ a degenerate from a House-Elf point of > view. Certainly all the HEs at Hogwarts view him this way. And while > a HE in the employ of a DE is likely to be poorly treated, I don't > think the Hogwarts' elves are. Hogwarts seems to be House-Elf heaven. > > DG This is the exact point I'm trying to make. It's nice to know that someone thinks the same way I do (I was starting to wonder) Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From jmmears at prodigy.net Thu Mar 28 21:32:38 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:32:38 -0000 Subject: Free Elves Unite?/Harry as Saviour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37098 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "talondg" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., ladjables wrote: > > > It seems to me JKR grasps the concept of mental > > bondage very well with the House-Elfs, so that even > > though we don't have a precise historical context, the > > point is driven home that the the plight of the > > House-Elfs mirrors the effects of colonial slavery. DG wrote: > Well, maybe. > > Or maybe the House-Elves have a distinct (if somewhat alien) culture > that simply doesn't map into the Western sensibilities of Hermonie, > and Hermonie's efforts to force her interpretation of their "plight" > onto the Hogwarts House-Elves instead mirrors Western intrusions into > other cultures? I agree completely. I wrote an elaborate post last night concerning the elves culture/natures being distinctly different from the Western Humanist model, but Yahoo ate it and I was too tired to do it over (I even used the term Cultural Imperialism!). DG again: > Perhaps Dobby really _is_ a degenerate from a House-Elf point of > view. Certainly all the HEs at Hogwarts view him this way. And while > a HE in the employ of a DE is likely to be poorly treated, I don't > think the Hogwarts' elves are. Hogwarts seems to be House-Elf heaven. Considering what a *deviant* Dobby is from the house elf point of view, I thought the other elves were quite tolerant of his eccentricity. Winky, on the other hand, seemed to deeply embarrass them by her emotional breakdown, even though she completely buys into the standard elfish social norms. Maybe they were just being British . Jo Serenadust From m.bockermann at t-online.de Thu Mar 28 22:14:15 2002 From: m.bockermann at t-online.de (m.bockermann at t-online.de) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 23:14:15 +0100 Subject: Tom Riddle's/Voldemort's name References: <1017309906.3119.95364.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <003d01c1d6a6$58495280$18fb9b3e@i7p8l9> No: HPFGUIDX 37099 Ama wrote: Speaking of the brotherhood of the wands, ecuman, did you know that the name Thomas, as in Tom Riddle/Voldemort means twin?! Just a little something to ruminate on... Me: Speaking of Tom Riddle's name... here is something that I have been chewing on for some time. As we know, Dumbledore is *very* adamant about calling Lord Voldemort by his "proper name" (HP1, chapter 1) and not "you-know-who" or another euphemism. In most magical systems in literature, the name of a person has a very special meaning - often it is a key to his/her power, possibly kept secret and so on. So it is logical to insist on calling Voldemort by his *real* name: Riddle. Still, Dumbledores insists on calling him Voldemort. Now, here is the question: if Dumbledore is so eager to dispell the fear people have about calling the dark Lord by his name - why is he still using "Voldemort" at all? We know (and Dumbledore does, too) that Voldemort is in truth Tom Riddle. So *why* doesn't Dumbledore tell people about it? Instead of telling them who Voldemort was and giving the witches and wizards a chance to deal with the information, Dumbledore keeps it secret. There is still the trophy Riddle won for his special service (the servie that ended Haggrid's education at Hogwarts) at its honered place in Hogwarts. So the WW at large hasn't connected Riddle to Voldemort. The witches and wizards remain blissfully ignorant. What would happen, if he announced Voldemort's identity? Are there any people who would be bothered, threatened, whatever by the realization that the charming, strenuous student named Riddle turned into this monster? Is there any way this fact would endanger Harry? Why would it matter: because of a rich Muggle named Riddle or a witch whose name still remains unknown? Any ideas on this subject? Or am I just chasing butterflies? Barbara Jebenstreit From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Mar 28 22:34:19 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 22:34:19 -0000 Subject: Quiddich Cup Winners? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37100 Lately, there has been quite some talk about who paid for Harry's first broom. Several times, people have pointed out that McGonagal wanted Gryffindors to win the house cup, and that's why she bended the rules for Harry to join the team (this is canon). However, we know that, in fact, Gryffindor does NOT win the cup until Harry recieves his second broom, from Sirius, in book 3 (PoA). Anyway, I was wondering: are we ever told what house(s) win(s) the first two quiddich cups Harry plays (PS & CoS)? I'd imagine that they're not won by Slytherin (since Snape would have said something in PoA about having won 9 consecutive times), but I'm not sure about it. Views on the topic? Canon I'm missing? On the same trend, who do you think is the student Wood uses to substitute Harry when he's unable to play (broken arms, facing Voldemort, etc.)? Grey Wolf, who feels strange at not finding a way of including "Hope that helps" in the message appart from this one. From huntleyl at mssm.org Thu Mar 28 23:04:18 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:04:18 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Free Elves Unite? References: Message-ID: <001f01c1d6ac$e3c14e20$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 37101 Grey Wolfe: >You're overlooking something: it's true that Winky comes off as >pathetic once she's been liberated, but that's precisly the sort of >damage I'm trying to spare them from. Alright. Isn't this the "it's for your own good" philosophy you were criticizing Hermione for? In fact, your main Atan-modeled theory falls under this category. The elves were too powerful, so, in order to make sure they didn't hurt anyone, a group of ancient elves got together and decided that they absolutely *had* to commit themselves and all their descendants to perpetual slavery? I have a hard time believing that anything close to this might have taken place. It's too -- far fetched. Why would the elven race view itself as dangerous? I mean, I can buy *wizards* viewing them as dangerous, much like Muggles would view wizards (with their unfathomable power) as dangerous. But the elven race as a whole, throwing up it's hands and deciding to turn itself in to another, magically inferior, race? Especially a race so power hungry and easily corrupted as the human one? Hum..just doesn't work in my head. Also, as I have not read the book in which the Atans play a role, I may be getting the context wrong, but what *exactly* about servitude made all these violent warriors suddenly go all docile? Why did giving these confrontational people over to a bunch of *other* physically weaker, more peaceful race (who in turn were expected to tell the violent race what to do) help any? I would've thought that the Atans would simply have revolted after a bit and slaughtered the other race. Maybe they would've gone along with it out of respect for their king for awhile, but if it's in their nature to fight -- I can't see how if they couldn't curb that before, what putting them in a position of enslavement would do. Also, just to clarify something I said earlier: When I said that I hoped I could chose death for myself and descendents over slavery, I *did not* mean I would kill myself and take any children I had *at the time* with me. Any kids I might have would of course be left to make their own choices about their own lives. I merely meant that I would not want to go into slavery and then have children *knowing* that those children and their children, etc. would be slaves as well. If I were ever in such a situation, I would simply not have kids at all. In other words, I would not be concerned with continuing my bloodline at the expense of the well being of the people who would be carrying that blood -- some people make a fuss about such things, I don't. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From abigailnus at yahoo.com Thu Mar 28 23:05:40 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 23:05:40 -0000 Subject: Quiddich Cup Winners? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37102 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > Anyway, I was wondering: are we ever told what house(s) win(s) the > first two quiddich cups Harry plays (PS & CoS)? I'd imagine that > they're not won by Slytherin (since Snape would have said something in > PoA about having won 9 consecutive times), but I'm not sure about it. > Views on the topic? Canon I'm missing? Well, it's nearly 1 AM (and soon to be 2 AM as we're switching to daylight savings time tonight) so I'm not going to pull out my copies of PS and CoS, but I seem to remember that when Harry wakes up in the infirmary after facing Quirrel in PS, he discovers from his friends that Slytherin flattened Ravenclaw in their match and have therefore won the Quidditch cup. In CoS, of course, the tournament is cancelled due to the attacks and the imminent closure of the school. So Slytherin have had 8 wins, and technically their streak is over since nobody wins in CoS. And by the way, the fact that Slytherin keep beating Gryffindor to the cup is mentioned as a sore point in the first three books, although it bothers Harry regardless of whether Snape mentions it. I also believe (but I'm much less certain about this) that when McGonagall gives Harry back his Firebolt in PoA, she tells him to try to win, because Snape will be truly unbearable if they lose the cup again, altough I may be confusing PoA and PS. > > On the same trend, who do you think is the student Wood uses to > substitute Harry when he's unable to play (broken arms, facing > Voldemort, etc.)? It's clearly stated that there is no reserve Seeker in PS (Harry says so when Ron and Hermione are trying to convince him not to play in the second game of the season after discovering that Snape is going to referee) but the concept of a reserve player is not unknown as Lee Jordan mentions, while commentating on one of the games in PS, that one of the Chasers on the team (Alicia Spinnet?) was only a reserve in the previous year. I guess the skills for a seeker are so rare that finding one good one every few years is all you can expect. > > Grey Wolf, who feels strange at not finding a way of including "Hope > that helps" in the message appart from this one. Well, I'll say it then - hope that helps. Happy belated Passover, y'all, Abigail From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Mar 28 23:26:43 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 23:26:43 -0000 Subject: FILK: If You Are the Christ (was: Voldemort as Christ figure) In-Reply-To: <20020328122644.12408.qmail@web13501.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37103 The current thread on Voldemort as a Christ figure prompted the following: If You Are the Christ (to the tune of King Herod's Song from Jesus Christ Superstar) Voldy, your significance I thought was very plain You're the Prince of Darkness, deep in Circle Nine you reign Evil Satan, or maybe King Herod Now some call you a satire upon the Son of God So, if you are the Christ, You're the symbol for Christ Prove to me that you kick ass Plead the Fifth `fore Caiaphas Do a death on the Cross Then return as the Boss C'mon, great You-Know-Who! Resurrections for a Lord are not all that unique How many of them tell us we should turn the other cheek? Oh, yes you came back with flesh and blood and bone But will you tell your followers to hold back that first stone? So, if you are the Christ, You're the symbol for Christ Prove to me that you're the Man Do forty days in sun and sand Wash a Death Eaters' feet Then we'll know they can't beat JC as You-Know-Who We've not seen Lord Voldemort act as an exorcist, Casting demons into swine with an Animagic twist Oh, will he forgive those who trespass against him? Or is an Unforgiven shtik more Voldy's kind of thing? So, if you are the Christ, You're the symbol for Christ Demonstrate your full net worth: Document your virgin birth Mind-meld with Fawkes bird If it's true you're the Word C'mon up You-Know-Who! (Enter, in a sulpherous cloud, LORD VOLDEMORT, highly indignant) VOLDEMORT I don't want to be Christ To get thorn-crowned and diced Please take this into account I don't do Sermons on the Mount They're pulling yourleg That I'm Pullman-OK'd I'm not King of the Don't say *marathana*! I'm the son of a witch! (VOLDEMORT abruptly Apparates from the scene) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Mar 28 23:43:20 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 23:43:20 -0000 Subject: Free Elves Unite? In-Reply-To: <001f01c1d6ac$e3c14e20$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37104 Laura Huntley wrote: > Grey Wolfe: Grey Wolfe? Grey *Wolfe*? Ohmygod what have I done to deserve this! ;-) I know, I know. I'm past my bedtime and my mental process are starting to slurr, even more so since I'm trying to think in an alien language. Anyway, for my last post before calling it a day. Laura Huntley again: >> Alright. Isn't this the "it's for your own good" philosophy you were criticizing Hermione for? In fact, your main Atan-modeled theory falls under this category. The elves were too powerful, so, in order to make sure they didn't hurt anyone, a group of ancient elves got together and decided that they absolutely *had* to commit themselves and all their descendants to perpetual slavery? I have a hard time believing that anything close to this might have taken place. It's too -- far fetched. Why would the elven race view itself as dangerous? I mean, I can buy *wizards* viewing them as dangerous, much like Muggles would view wizards (with their unfathomable power) as dangerous. But the elven race as a whole, throwing up it's hands and deciding to turn itself in to another, magically inferior, race? Especially a race so power hungry and easily corrupted as the human one? Hum..just doesn't work in my head.<< First off, I didn't want to come across as critic of the "for your own good" philosophy. I just said that it brings fear to my heart, since it's going to involve pain sonner or later. At times, however, it's the only correct way (and I've used it myself at times). However, if there is another way that doesn't involve pain, I believe it should be used, even if it's not as good. Anyway, you see my Atan-theory as far-fetched. I'm not in perfect working conditions right now, but let me trot out an example for you: Imagine a race of people in which every single individual has the powers of Voldemort and Dumbledore rolled together. Since power doesn't equate to wisdom, most of the people will be out of control (a very recurrent theme in fantasy is that an individual entitled with the power of a god but without it's wisdom will become insane or something worse). Faced with the perspective of continual internal fight, the elders (taking your example), who have adquired certain amount of wisdom, realise that their people are getting out of control. Thus, they decide to unite their powers to create an enchantment by which the powers are controled. The best way is to separate the decission of using those powers from the people themselves, which means someone else has to be able to decide when to use that powers. They choose humans because they're the most dependable of the intelligent races (which doesn't mean they're very dependable). That way, the people can continue their existance, and keep their powers, but cannot kill each other or others over whims. Following on this theory, there would be other sub-clauses, like the inability to use AK-equivalents unless by mutual accord of the majority of the people, etc. >> Also, as I have not read the book in which the Atans play a role, I may be getting the context wrong, but what *exactly* about servitude made all these violent warriors suddenly go all docile? Why did giving these confrontational people over to a bunch of *other* physically weaker, more peaceful race (who in turn were expected to tell the violent race what to do) help any? I would've thought that the Atans would simply have revolted after a bit and slaughtered the other race. Maybe they would've gone along with it out of respect for their king for awhile, but if it's in their nature to fight -- I can't see how if they couldn't curb that before, what putting them in a position of enslavement would do. > > Laura << Read the book. You'll like it. Start on "The Diamond Throne", though (it's the first, although Atans are only mentione in 4th and beyond). Anyway, to the matter at hand: the Atans are not slaves in the normal sense. They do what they please, except that they cannot kill people until they are told. They still have their king and, since their society is militaristic, they respect it and obey him as the supreme general. The "weaker race"'s control is reduced to who they can kill. During the course of the books, the arrengement starts to break at the seams, though. I do realise that the parallelism between Atans and elves is not perfect, but nonetheless is enough to express my theory (which I'll get around to Acronym-ize sometime soon) Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who's brain is half sleeping already, toghether with most of his neural system and hopes he's making sense. If not, he'll mend it in the morning. From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Fri Mar 29 00:34:06 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:34:06 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who's Afraid Of The Big, Bad Wolf? (WAS Odd parallels and FEATHERBOAS) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37105 >And Ron, at least briefly. Remember "Get away from me, werewolf"? Just to add two knuts and a really late reply... This is one thing I always find interesting about the trio. They have such different ways of reacting to things. In the instance of Lupin being a werewolf... *Hermione, the smart one, already knew. She blows his proverbial cover and gets to feel a tiny bit...well, superior, for about half a second. *Harry, even though we see through his eyes, we get no clear reaction from him *that I recall*. But I suspect this was rather mind blowing. *Ron, who has lived in the wizarding world all of his 13 years and has grown up with the prejudices about werewolves, has the stomach-turning reaction of "Get away from me, werewolf!" (Well, it turned MY stomach.) Such is on the House Elf Liberation and S.P.E.W... *Hermione is...um, gung-ho to say the least about freeing the house elves. Her arguement is that they are slave labour. *Harry, being the good friend that he is, pays his dues and becomes a *coughNonactivecough* member of S.P.E.W. He is a bit occupied with the Triwizard Tournament in GoF, but I don't think that he has a strong opinion either way as of yet. *Ron, again who has lived in the wizarding world his entire life, uses the arguement that the House Elves *like* doing what they do, unpaid. This, of course, infuriates Hermione to no end. Just something interesting...comments? Opinions? Rotten vegetables? Liz _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From sandirs at hotmail.com Thu Mar 28 21:54:52 2002 From: sandirs at hotmail.com (Sandi Steinberg) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:54:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Prof. Sprout's First Name & Salazar Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37106 While we are on the subject of names, a question was asked about the name "Salazar".. Which reminds me, I was wondering where Salazar Slytherin's name originates. I know Slytherin is what a snake does, but does Salazar have any connotations, or did JKR make it up? > I believe it is the name of the former long-term dictator of Portuagal; didn't I read somewhere ('could be mistaken) that JKR's former husband is Portuguese and that she spent some time teaching in that country??? Sandi Steinberg _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From ksmccormick at hotmail.com Thu Mar 28 22:49:31 2002 From: ksmccormick at hotmail.com (kscottmccormick) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 22:49:31 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] HP and similarities to other books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37107 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "voicelady" wrote: > wibble wrote: "By the way, I found there were also a couple of very similar ideas to Eoin Colfer's Artemis Fowl too." The moderator of two anti-Potter Yahoo groups has a little webpage on similarities to other fantasy literature at http://www.geocities.com/hp_originality/ KM From jloveys at zoom.co.uk Thu Mar 28 23:14:10 2002 From: jloveys at zoom.co.uk (Jedi Knight Jo) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 23:14:10 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quiddich Cup Winners? References: Message-ID: <000601c1d6ae$45b30be0$133c68d5@jody> No: HPFGUIDX 37108 >>Lately, there has been quite some talk about who paid for Harry's first broom. Several times, people have pointed out that McGonagal wanted Gryffindors to win the house cup, and that's why she bended the rules for Harry to join the team (this is canon). However, we know that, in fact, Gryffindor does NOT win the cup until Harry recieves his second broom, from Sirius, in book 3 (PoA). Anyway, I was wondering: are we ever told what house(s) win(s) the first two quiddich cups Harry plays (PS & CoS)? I'd imagine that they're not won by Slytherin (since Snape would have said something in PoA about having won 9 consecutive times), but I'm not sure about it. Views on the topic? Canon I'm missing? On the same trend, who do you think is the student Wood uses to substitute Harry when he's unable to play (broken arms, facing Voldemort, etc.)? Grey Wolf<< But this isn't due to Harry not being as good as people think, rather that for whatever reason there is no match or he didn't play. In Book One, they were a player short because he was in the infirmary, it says so in the book, "Slytherin won... you missed the last Quidditch match - we were steamrolled by Ravenclaw without you..." Although having said that and read the passage, it doesn't actually say if they were short a player or not, just that they were without Harry. In Book Two, the matches are cancelled from about half way through the season because of the Basilisk, so there was no completion of the tournament and no winner. The format of the whole inter house tournament seems to change throughout the books though. In the first book it seems to be that the points are totalled up from all the matches played as every house plays every other house. In the third, it seems to be more of a progression thing with a 'final' at the end of the year between Slytherin and Gryffindor. Unless I just read wrong and it's the 'final match' of the year rather than the 'match final'. ;) I think I made a comment on everything there. ;) --Jo From ksmccormick at hotmail.com Thu Mar 28 22:43:45 2002 From: ksmccormick at hotmail.com (kscottmccormick) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 22:43:45 -0000 Subject: Voldemort as Christ figure; Ira, not Cole In-Reply-To: <3CA324CC.A374B821@ksu.edu> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37109 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Philip Nel wrote: > > While it's true that (as CMC points out) the phoenix is a symbol of resurrection, it (he) is also a character in E. Nesbit's _The Phoenix and the Carpet_. His symbolic value may be as likely tied to E. Nesbit as to Christian symbolism. The symbolism is not necessarily Christian. I would say the phoenix represents rebirth more than resurrection. It dies and is reborn. This is consistent with the symbolism of alchemy, and I don't think anyone here would say that "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" has nothing to do with alchemy. The alchemical rebirth is a rebirth into a higher spiritual state, and that seems to me to be what is going on in HP. Alchemy was resurrected as a spiritual endeavor mainly by C.G. Jung in the 20th century, and is a small part of a much wider neopagan religious movement today; just check any occult bookstore for books on alchemy. For more on this, see my paper at http://geocities.com/nopotter2001 KM From landers at email.unc.edu Fri Mar 29 01:53:33 2002 From: landers at email.unc.edu (Betty) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:53:33 -0500 Subject: Quiddich Cup Winners? Message-ID: <3CA3C91D.F2FCC7B1@email.unc.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 37110 Grey Wolf Anyway, I was wondering: are we ever told what house(s) win(s) the first two quiddich cups Harry plays (PS & CoS)? I'd imagine that they're not won by Slytherin (since Snape would have said something in PoA about having won 9 consecutive times), but I'm not sure about it. Views on the topic? Canon I'm missing? Actually, it's seven years for hte quidditch cup in PoA. I don't have the exact chapter(s) and don't have time at the moment to find them. but I'm sure it's 7. Grey Wolf Again On the same trend, who do you think is the student Wood uses to substitute Harry when he's unable to play (broken arms, facing Voldemort, etc.)? There's not a reserve seeker; otherwise, for example, Harry wouldn't have been dreaming about Neville playing in his place b/c he overslept in PoA. Similarly, in SS, Harry states plainly that there isn't a reserve seeker, before the match at which Snape will referee. A broken arm can be fixed in a matter of minutes, so that's not even an issue (see SS9, when NEville breaks his wrist). It's when the arm's deboned that it takes all night. Grey Wolf, who feels strange at not finding a way of including "Hope that helps" in the message appart from this one. Lol! I'll do it for you. Hope that helps Betty From editor at texas.net Fri Mar 29 02:44:47 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:44:47 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: A Muggle House / Wizarding Age of Majority References: Message-ID: <00a401c1d6cb$b1b32f60$b37663d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 37111 Catlady (I think it was catlady) asserted: ----- Original Message ----- From: "catlady_de_los_angeles" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 11:40 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: A Muggle House / Wizarding Age of Majority > If George's statement in CoS that "House-elves come with big old > manors and castles and places like that" means that House Elves are > bound to the house (building) rather than to the people, then a > Muggle house would not have a House ELf bound to it. This seems, on the face of it, to not necessarily be true. There are loads of big old manors and castles and places like that in the Muggle world; I've seen pictures of them and I've stood in a few in Poland. > The house at > Godric's Hollow in which James and Lily were living in hiding, until > it was blown up as a result of Voldemort's attack on the Potters, was > a Muggle house. Upon what evidence do you base this assertion? I'm really curious about this. --Amanda From huntleyl at mssm.org Fri Mar 29 04:36:13 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 23:36:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Free Elves Unite? References: Message-ID: <000a01c1d6db$420525a0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 37112 Grey *Wolf*: >Grey Wolfe? Grey *Wolfe*? Ohmygod what have I done to deserve this! ;-) *smiles sheepishly* Sorry, I know someone by the name of Wolfe, so every time I type your name, I automatically add on the extra "e"...usually I catch myself and correct it but..*sighs* Grey Wolf continues: >Imagine a race of people in which every single individual has the >powers of Voldemort and Dumbledore rolled together. Ok. What I've been trying to express is -- to the average muggle, even Neville Longbottom's powers are formidable. Taking the analogy further, compared to say, a normal house cat, humans are *very* powerful. We even use that power in very destructive ways at times. But does that mean we ought to subject ourselves our pets? Should the wizarding race subject itself to the muggle world? What I'm trying to say is, to a wizard, and certainly to muggles such as ourselves, house elves may seem dangerously powerful, but to each other? ....it's all relative. If they are all pretty much the same magic wise (yes, I know there may be a lot of variation in talent from elf to elf, but on the grand scheme of things, they all seem about equal) why would one elf be a particular threat to another elf? It doesn't make sense. If wizards are *really* enough of a threat to muggles (at least not to the point that drastic measures need to be taken) why should elves be a threat to wizards, much less each other? *sighs* Oh well, ^_~ It looks like we're pretty much just arguing in circles at this point..perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree? HEY!! As a gesture of goodwill, I'll even throw in an acronym: *ahem* E.N.S.L.A.V.E.M.E.N.T (Elves Need Slavery Lest Aggression and Violence Erupt, Making Extinction Near Threat) laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Mar 24 23:39:55 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 23:39:55 -0000 Subject: Memory Charms: For discrete events In-Reply-To: <00a201c1d13d$0598e140$6f2bdccb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37113 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" wrote: > > Therefore the only purpose of the Memory Charm is to *reduce* the trauma suffered. Take away the first-hand eyewitness trauma, but leave the second-hand aftermath trauma untouched (unless they're going to keep on Charming him to wipe that too). There is no way Neville is going to go about his life as if the event never happened. > > What I'm saying is that this particular event is not isolated and short term in its effects but inextricably connected with the rest of Neville's life, and therefore not very suited to a Memory Charm for altruistic, psychological purposes. Unless Neville himself (with Accidental Magic) did it. > A Memory Charm to conceal the identity of the perpetrators would make more sense, because then the fact that Neville sees the aftermath isn't a problem... he can't remember the *actual* event, and hence can't point the finger. This is where Cindy's Reverse Memory Charm comes in. At the trial, they had to use "the Longbottoms" (in a bad condition, says Dumbledore) to identify the culprits. Was Neville included? Perhaps when no sense could be gotten from his parents, they had to break the Memory Charm on Neville. This can be done, because Voldemort did it to Bertha (using torture). *Hence* he now remembers the incident, and *hence* his memory is bad because it's, well, occupied with horrible things most of the time. If it was so --- Snape was the one breaking it! By torture? No wonder that little kid is scared to death by the sight of him! > (To her alarm, Tabouli finds herself looking at a nice, comfy MATCHING ARMCHAIR...) > > Hmmm... now that raises another possibility... were the Lestranges and co torturing the Longbottoms to try to break a Memory Charm on *them*? Perhaps they knew where Voldemort had fled, and Dumbledore or someone obliviated their memory of this so they *couldn't* give it away. > > I dunno. I'm just not convinced that many people *really* get tortured to death without spilling the beans. I'm with Elkins there... it's amazing what people will do when being exposed to extreme pain. Maybe they were--- gosh... I *hope* that torture isn't the *only* way... Poor little Neville. Also... If Imperio can be fought off, maybe Memory Charm can, too? And with *less* effort. From uncmark at yahoo.com Tue Mar 26 03:40:27 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 03:40:27 -0000 Subject: Will Winky go to the Weasleys? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37114 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > I think it'd be very out-of character. We've seen how devoted Winky > was to the Crouches. Do you think she'd leave caring for Crouch Jr. > even after that... ummmm... fiasco? I personally think that Winky is the most tragic character in HP. Agreed Winky's Tragic, but I can't see JKR leaving her nursing the leftover shell of Barty Crouch (I'm picturing braindead unable to feed or clean himself) I picture her and Dobby together and can see Hermione working with them spearheading SPEW. I had started a post on SPEW wondering what rights the elves needed. With their magic they can probably heal any injury. I looked up all references to Dobby and Winky and changed positions. Dobby was regularly beaten or told to punish himself. He mentioned slamming his head in an oven and punched himself in the head. Also he said elves were treated WORSE during Valdemort's reign worse than animals. Winky wasn't beaten physically (as far as we know) but was made an accessory to use of Imperius, and unforgiveable curse. Most of the Hogwart's elfs are content to serve in ignorance, but do they know of the severity of Dobby and Winky's mistreatment? Elf rights will probably not be a front page headline in the Prophet while Voldemort is on people's minds (although it might become a cause celebre while MoM ignores Valdemorts rise). If Hermione becomes famous as a partner of the great Potter, or Harry speaks out publically after LV's defeat and gives credit to his friend (not servant) Dobby, Elf rights will comes about. But then again, the US never bothered passing the ERA. Uncmark From cindysphynx at comcast.net Mon Mar 25 00:07:55 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 00:07:55 -0000 Subject: Just Desserts (WAS Hagrid not brave? (was Re: Hagrid, Keeper of the Keys)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37115 Hmmm. I attempted to post this hours ago, but it seems to have fallen off of a cliff. Apologies if the original turns up. **************** Jenny wrote (about Hagrid's bravery): > I shall say no more, as I've bemoaned how I feel about Hagrid many > times here. I'm just waiting for Cindy to jump in and join me! > Oh, dear. I think I am losing zest for the hunt. Hagrid might be incompetent, but at least he is not Evil. See, I've been reading all of these posts about how even lowly Pettigrew is to be pittied and spared. How we were to pity Black even when we thought he was a ruthless killer. How even evil Crouch Jr. is deserving of sympathy when he was relieved of his soul. In the face of all that, how am I supposed to pile on against Hagrid? How, I ask, how? To tell you the truth, I'm getting a little worried that I just might . . . be going Soft. Consider this: Elkins (on just desserts for Pettigrew in the Shrieking Shack): >It doesn't right any wrongs; it doesn't cause anyone to > behave any better; it doesn't ensure anyone's safety; it brings no > one any closer to redemption or virtue or even simple happiness. It > doesn't make the world a better place in any way, shape or form. > There's just nothing there *to* make me feel content. Yes, there are plenty of people in the world who would find pleasure in the execution of someone like Pettigrew. They are often found opening bottles of champagne outside prisons when someone is executed. I don't count myself among them, you'll be pleased to know. But there is another emotion and motivation in the Shack that I can identify with: finality. Lupin and Black were going to execute Pettigrew. Pettigrew was weeping and cringing and all, making it difficult for them, perhaps. There was a lot of talk about avenging James and Lily, about what Peter should have done rather than betray his friends. The real justification for their finishing Peter, however, is to end this thing. Peter has shown no remorse, so there is no basis to believe that he will not return to the dark side at the first opportunity. Peter was as Evil To The Core in the Shack as he ever was. Nothing had changed. Peter's demise would not be something to celebrate. But it surely would have served a purpose, though. It would have prevented Frank Bryce's death, Cedric's death, Bertha's death and Crouch Sr. death. It would have prevented Voldemort's rise. It would have prevented all of the deaths we will be treated to in the next three books. So there is something to be said for finality, perhaps. Elkins again: > Well, how to say this without it coming across as either droolingly > self-evident or insufferably self-righteous? > > I hate murder. . . . And to my mind, once > someone is lying on his back staring at you while you're holding a > weapon on him, it's no longer self-defense if you kill him. Boy, this is a tough argument to make. Somehow, I find myself taking up the "Pro-Murder" banner. How did I get backed into this particular corner? :-) Seriously, though, I think I wasn't too terribly concerned when Harry had his wand on Black. I just didn't think he could have gone through with it. It just didn't register with me. JKR wrote it that way by telling us all of Harry's doubts and hesitation. I also had the conventions of fiction working for me there, too. I mean, really. The Good Guys *never* just blast the Bad Guy. The Bad Guy has to do something stupid like lunge at the Good Guy before the Good Guy can pull the trigger. I wasn't too worried. Now Black and Lupin definitely meant business with Pettigrew. And why was that OK? Well, we know that wizarding justice stinks. Pettigrew is likely to be able to talk his way out of Azkaban and join the Dark Lord. That's assuming that Black and Lupin can even take Peter into custody at all (which they failed to do). So to me, the fact that he showed no true remorse (no, self-preservation isn't the same thing) means that Pettigrew was still a threat. Not an immediate threat, that is, a threat to harm the trio or Black or Lupin right then. He was a longer-term threat to the wizarding world in general. Under the circumstances, I was quite willing to let Lupin and Black off the hook in the Shack. Maybe I should be feeling some pity for them for the ugly task they faced. Cindy (Tough, yet Soft) From scaryfairymary at hotmail.com Mon Mar 25 23:27:06 2002 From: scaryfairymary at hotmail.com (pigwidgeon2k) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 23:27:06 -0000 Subject: Harry as Arthur? WAS: Harry the Saviour? In-Reply-To: <005e01c1d382$2b014fc0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37116 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" wrote: > 4 - Someone (lady of the lake-esqe) will give Harry a special weapon (wand?) to help him fight V. after his special wand is broken/lost. Interesting. Moaning Myrtle does hang around in the lake quite a lot and obviously has a bit if a thing for Harry. Anything could be lying around on the bottom of that lake that would be useful for our hero. However, I don't think Harry's wand will get lost or broken before the final showdown, considering he was clearly *meant* to have the wand for a great purpose (getting V.). In all reality, as much and all as we love Harry, he simply doesnt have the skills or the power to overpower such a strong wizard as V. without the special connection of their wands. I'm probably WAY off but anyway there you go, it's been ages since i've had the time to read any posts. :( -Mary- From alina at distantplace.net Tue Mar 26 02:28:06 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 21:28:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Will Winky go to the Weasleys? References: Message-ID: <002e01c1d46d$dda22780$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37117 ----- Original Message ----- From: lucky_kari To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 11:10 AM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Will Winky go to the Weasleys? I think it'd be very out-of character. We've seen how devoted Winky was to the Crouches. Do you think she'd leave caring for Crouch Jr. even after that... ummmm... fiasco? I think the only way Winky would come to care for the Weasleys would be if one of the Weasleys saved her or put her in their debt somehow. It's very unlikely, however, since she is technically employed by Hogwarts and I don't think she can disgrace herself further by simply leaving a place of employment, but Dumbledore would probably let her go. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Bugeater93 at aol.com Fri Mar 29 06:10:04 2002 From: Bugeater93 at aol.com (bugeater93) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:10:04 -0000 Subject: Minister of Magic? Popes St. Cornelius and St. Lucius (I)... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37118 At the request of a member from a different group, I'm posting this here. They thought it would spark some interesting conversations. To fill you in on the beginning of the topic...we were speculating about Cornelius Fudge dying or perhaps fleeing in Book 5 and what would happen if Lucius Malfoy were to somehow use his influence and con his way into replacing Fudge as Minister of Magic. Though it seems pretty far-fetched, one of the members of the group found information about two Popes...St. Cornelius and the man who succeeded him, St. Lucius (I). I thought it very interesting because we all know JK Rowling uses historical figures and events as some basis for her characters and plot. So, I did a little digging and this is what I came up with. I'd love to read your thoughts on this topic. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09411a.htm Above is the link to an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia (I didn't know such a thing exsisted) about Pope St. Lucius (I) and Pope St. Cornelius. It does indeed say that St. Cornelius was exiled and that St. Lucius (I) took over, but he was soon after exiled...then returned from exile. I suggest you read the whole article, as it's very interesting. As for how Pope St. Lucius (I) dies, it says he was beheaded in early March the year after he became Pope. So, if indeed Lucius Malfoy takes Cornelius Fudge's position as Minister of Magic in Book 5, Lucius will probably die in Book 6. In the article, it also says that St. Cornelius was considered a martyr, while St. Lucius (I) was respected, but not written down as being a martyr. It also says some stuff about St. Lucius (I) having friends in exile (Death Eaters, maybe?) and that St. Lucius (I) adhered to the principals of St. Cornelius. So he'll most likely want to keep the Dementors guarding Azkaban and shun the giants, etc, etc. And a very interesting quote of some of St. Lucius' policy..."For they, filled with the spirit of the Lord and confirmed in glorious martyrdom, judged that pardon ought to be given to the Lapsi, and signified in their letters that, when these had done penance, they were not to be denied the enjoyment of communion and reconciliation." I take that this could mean that he'll pardon all the convicted Death Eaters in Azkaban and let them return to society, meaning that Sirius Black would also be pardoned. St. Stephen (I) was Pope after St. Lucius (I), but I didn't notice anyone named Stephen in the books. Personally, I think Arthur Weasley would become Minister of Magic, because I've heard him referred to as a King Arthur type figure and everyone else seems to think he will, so why not? I can see some really great things happening with the plots in future books if this stuff is true. From oppen at cnsinternet.com Fri Mar 29 07:06:42 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:06:42 -0600 Subject: What to do with Pettigrew, once captured? Message-ID: <014101c1d6f0$48d68d00$e6c71bce@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 37119 I remember the scene well where Peter Pettigrew, exposed, cowered and whimpered for mercy...and the utter lack of respect I had for him. I couldn't imagine Severus Snape, in his pre-spy days when he _was_ a real proud Death Eater, doing anything of the sort, or Lucius Malfoy, or _especially_ Lord Voldemort. There is a certain grandeur in proud, unrepentant evil, a la Satan in Milton's _Paradise Lost,_ but a snivelling coward, whimpering for mercy to the very people he had most bitterly wronged? Uh-_uh._ Had I been Remus or Sirius, I'd have probably yielded to an overwhelming temptation to demonstrate the ancient and honorable Muggle British martial art of "putting the boot in." It wasn't as though he honestly hadn't had any choice about what he did...even though he _may_ have had no choice about blabbing to Voldemort about Lily and James, he could just as easily have hidden out with his fellow rats after Voldemort's unfortunate little accident. Instead, he deliberately set up a guy who had been his friend, in a really cruel, heartless way involving the murder of many innocent bystanders, to take the fall for _his_ crime. That being said, once I'd worked off my feelings with a good solid kicking, I wouldn't have killed him...a simple _Petrificus Totalus_ or Stunning Spell combined with a _Mobilicorpus,_ a trip down the tunnel to Hogwarts (avoiding dementors), and an interview with Dumbledore, and Sirius Black's name is cleared. I can always be turned from my bloodstained aims by a few things, and raw pragmatism is one of them. However, this still leaves us with the question of what to _do_ with little Peter. Azkaban? It obviously can't hold an Animagus, although a _known_ Animagus may be a different story---we don't know how many wizards and witches go there, or how long it's been there, and they may have not set it up to handle Animagi. Dementor smooch? Maybe. I have no qualms about executing a criminal who has proven that he's dangerous enough, and little Peter's about as harmless as a coral snake---the more dangerous for not _looking_ dangerous. From catlady at wicca.net Fri Mar 29 07:24:58 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 07:24:58 -0000 Subject: Wizard Guardianship / House Elves / Godric's Hollow /breaking a Memory Charm Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37120 Unc Mark wrote: > Also at the beginning of GoF, Ron wrote that they pick Harry up > whether or not he had permission from the Dursleys. Again it sounds > like kidnapping, unless Dumbledore has Wizard Guardianship. I don't doubt that Dumbledore is Harry's Wizard Guardian, but I think that Guardianship might be much less formal and legalistic in the wizarding world than in the modern Muggle world -- I have wondered, when the Lestranges were both sent to Azkaban, if they had a young child, would the MoM have taken it upon itself to find a foster home for the child, or would they do nothing but wait for some relative or friend or charitable person to voluntarily take the child, and not do anything unless someone made a formal complaint to MoM about an abandoned child? Thus, it could be that Dumbledore sent Hagrid to the wrecked house to collect Harry and made arrangements for where Harry would live and the MoM just breathed a sign of relief that Dumbledore was taking care of The Boy Who Lived so they wouldn't have to get involved. Another question is whether Harry running away from "home" with his friend's family would be considered kidnapping, or would it be considered stealing himself from his owners (as when a slave or an indentured apprentice runs away), or would it be considered him making his own decision of where to go? The wizarding world might give teen-agers more right to make their own decisions than the Muggle world does... in the old days, underage students were allowed to submit their names to the Goblet of Fire with apparently no system for requiring parental consent, and competing in the Triwizard Tournament is more dangerous than spectating the Quidditch World Cup. The idea of guardianship of children being informal and unofficial, and the idea of teen-agers having more rights than in the Muggle world, both seem to me to fit with the idea of the wizarding folk havingn a warrior-ethos culture like Livian Rome (and I don't remember to whom to give credit for the idea). But the existence of an apparently huge bureaucracy at MoM, with lots of laws that are sometimes even enforced, e.g. against flying carpets, and I have a dreadful fear that many activities are government monopolies, like maybe only MoM's Committee on Experimental Charms is allowed to invent new Charms and only MoM's Committee for Disposal of Dangerous Beasts is allowed to do something about that Manticore in the backyard.... It seems to me that there is a basic contradiction between warrior-ethos culture and such an intrusive government. Grey Wolf wrote: > notice that, appart from forcing Winky to go to high places, she's > never been mistreated, and that was *her* idea in the first place It seems that Winky had a fair amount of *power* in the Crouch household. Junior's narrative includes: "I was always with the house- elf.... She persuaded my father to give me occasional treats.... Winky talked my father into [allowing me to attend the Quidditch World Cup]." Also, she kept interjecting: "Say no more, Master Barty, say no more, you is getting your father into trouble!" Her Master, Senior, does what she wants, and she sccolds her Master, Junior. Amanda wrote: > Catlady wrote: > > The house at Godric's Hollow in which James and Lily were living > > in hiding, until it was blown up as a result of Voldemort's > > attack on the Potters, was a Muggle house. > Upon what evidence do you base this assertion? I'm really curious > about this. The evidence is because of the Celluloid-Thing-That-Must-Not-Be- Named. It showed the Muggle house. It was a sadly ordinary Muggle house, not an old castle nor even an old cottage. I know the Celluloid Thing contains a lot of things that aren't true (e.g. those inaccurate uniforms), but IIRC the pre-publicity included Kloves and Columbus teasing that this scene in the movie is a scene that JKR cut from the book because it gave away too much information, but she let them see it to put it into the script. Finwitch wrote: > I *hope* that torture isn't the *only* way [to break a Memory > Charm]. I should have put in my two Sickles' worth earlier in this thread that assumes that the way to break a Memory Charm is by torturer. The source for that claim appears to be Barty Junior: "He had captured Bertha Jorkins in Albania. He had tortured her. (snip) He tortured her until he broke through the Memory Charm." But Barty wasn't there; his evidence is just hearsay. I don't find Voldemort himself saying he used torture. At the beginning of GoF, he says to Wormtail: "I killed Bertha because I had to. She was fit for nothing after my questioning, quite useless. (snip) But Memory Charms can be broken by a powerful wizard, as I proved when I questioned her." In the Death Eater circle, he says: "for -- with a little persuasion -- she became a veritable mine of information. (snip) ...but the means I used to break the Memory Charm upon her were powerful, and when I had extreated all useful information from her, her mind and body were both damaged beyond repair." Voldemort says "questioning", "persuasion", and "means", all of which are known as euthemisms for torture, but he also says "a powerful wizard". Generally, a 'powerful wizard' is a wizard with powerful magic, altho' in the Potterverse it could also mean a wizard in charge of approving or rejecting expense account claims for MoM employees. Neither kind of power is particularly relevant to torture -- Filch *could* torture students with all the torture equipment he has, without needing magic at all. I believe that Voldemort broke the Memory Charm on Bertha by some kind of spell, some kind of Finite Incantatem. Because the Memory Charm was so strong, the Removal Charm had to be even stronger, and it was the side-effects of such strong magic that damaged her. A strong Memory Charm can do damage (as people have quoted in relation to Neville): "He put a very powerful Memory Charm on her to make her forget what she'd found out. Too powerful. He said it damaged her memory permanently." So I believe that a powerful Memory Charm Removal Charm can do even more damage, even physical damage. From skelkins at attbi.com Mon Mar 25 02:07:45 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 02:07:45 -0000 Subject: Arthur Weasley, With Imperius Curse (WAS: What's In A Name?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37121 Debbie wrote, about the Weasleys: > There certainly doesn't appear to be anything "weaselly" about > them. Quite the contrary. I think the Weasleys are among the most > straightforward characters in HP, and quite comfortable in their > own commoner shoes. (Now, is there an English town called > "Weasley"?) > Debbie, waiting for someone to prove her wrong by posting the > sinister Weasley backstory (no, I don't think Molly's sandwich > crimes will do) Weasley backstory? Did somebody request a Weasley backstory? You don't want your Weasleys straightforward, eh? You want someone to suggest something that will make you lie awake nights, worrying about them? You want something a bit more dire than Molly's culinary amnesia to make you feel paranoid and unsettled about the dear old Weasley clan? You asked for an improbable backstory speculation? At your service, Debbie. I don't know if this is quite what you hoped for -- it's not really so much sinister as it is sad -- but would you care for a bite of Arthur Weasley With Imperius Curse? Aw, come on. Just a nibble? Can't I get anyone to swallow one of these? They may be only half-baked, but I did make them myself, and with real canon! Here. I'll show you. Okay. Presumably, 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. And 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. So although everyone we have yet seen who claims to have been a victim of the Imperius Curse in canon has been lying, I nonetheless do believe that there were a number of genuine victims of the curse as well. I believe that Arthur Weasley might have been one of them. For one thing, at the time he 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. From Ludo Bagman's trial, we already know that the organization sought to make use of the ministry's younger and more vulnerable workers. It seems quite likely to me that they would have done so 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." And then there is Ron's knowledge of the precise details of Lucius Malfoy's acquittal. At the beginning of PS/SS, 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 kid 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. Primarily, though, I find the "The Unforgivable Curses" chapter of GoF strongly suggestive of the possibility that Arthur Weasley was one of Voldemort's Imperius victims. Although "several hands rose 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, right? He's both a sadist and a show-off; and he's 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 "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 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 was 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. Crouch is just like that. He's a sadist, and he has some...well, let's just say some parental issues. And finally, in defense of my Imperio'd Arthur Weasley theory, I would point out that Ron seems to find fighting off the Imperius Curse unusually difficult. 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 a weak-willed person at all, really. Well, could it be a family trait? Riddle's diary did quite the job on Ginny too. 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. No, if Arthur Weasley ever had a little Imperius problem, then that's been kept a secret from the children -- or at least from the younger ones. Bill and Charlie might know about it, but Ron, Ginny and the Twins certainly don't. Percy... Well, Percy might, or he might not. Hard to say, really. At any rate, if it's true, then it's a rather large secret, don't you think? Rather a nasty secret. Rather an ugly secret. A Deep Dark secret. A Skeleton In the Weasley Family Closet sort of secret. So I'm hoping that it's true. Because not only do I think that the it would be interesting for the Weasleys to have one of those; I also think that the Weasleys *act* as if they have one of those. There's something festering away somewhere in that family dynamic, and I don't think that it's just a matter of financial stress. I think that there's something swept under the carpet somewhere in that household. Something secret, and sad. Further speculations about missing Weasley children, Arthur's particular demeanor when telling the children about the significance of the Dark Mark at the end of Chapter 9 of GoF, Bill's contributions to that particular conversation, literary parallels between Percy Weasley and Barty Crouch, and how any of that might intersect with the series' thematic emphasis on damaged families, secrets, the effects of the past upon the present, and father-son relationships, I will leave to the cruel and ruthlessly bloody minds of my fellow FEATHERBOAS. -- Elkins, who really does adore Arthur Weasley. From monika at darwin.inka.de Fri Mar 29 09:12:40 2002 From: monika at darwin.inka.de (Monika Huebner) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:12:40 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Peter and Death Sentences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37122 > -----Original Message----- > From: Angela Burgess [mailto:MmeBurgess at msn.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 7:29 PM > However, I am of the belief that Sirius was not out to kill Peter > based on what he believed Peter *might* do. He was out to kill him > because he wanted to. Not to save society, not to save himself, not > to save Harry, but because he felt Peter deserved to die. There is > no indication to the contrary (that I can remember), therefore > applying more ethical goals to the actions of Remus and Sirius is > simply wishful thinking. No, it isn't. Sirius actually escaped from Azkaban because he thought Harry was in danger, after he saw the picture of Wormtail the rat on Ron's shoulder. "... ready to strike the moment he could be sure of allies... to deliver the last Potter to them. If he gave them Harry, who'd dare say he'd betrayed Lord Voldemort? He'd be welcomed back with honours... So you see, I had to do something. I was the only one who knew Peter was still alive..." (page 400 of the Bloomsbury paperback of PoA) Sirius accuses himself of having underestimated Peter, of not having realized that he was the traitor. Of course he thinks that Peter deserves to die, for what he has already done, but also for what he is supposedly going to do. *And* Sirius was the only one who knew that Peter was still alive, and he had *no* reason to believe that anyone would believe him that that was the case. No one had believed him when he was imprisoned, not even Dumbledore, at least that's how I understand it, so why should anyone believe him now? Yes, he wanted to get rid of Peter once and for all, and I can somehow understand this. Don't forget he had just spent 12 years in solitary confinement in one of the most horrible dungeons I have ever heard of. That is enough to unbalance anyone to a certain degree, so you shouldn't expect any wise or philanthropic decisions from him. He saw Peter as a danger for Harry in the first place, and this finally gave him the strength to escape which he could have done years before, but didn't. Monika who hasn't posted in a long time but just couldn't resist to reply to this thread. From lterrellgiii at icqmail.com Mon Mar 25 01:27:19 2002 From: lterrellgiii at icqmail.com (L. Terrell Gould, III) Date: 24 Mar 2002 17:27:19 -0800 Subject: Harry the Saviour? (was Re: A quote, and RE: Potter Message-ID: <20020325012719.26801.cpmta@c012.snv.cp.net> No: HPFGUIDX 37123 An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From meboriqua at aol.com Mon Mar 25 13:37:54 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 13:37:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore is NOT a relative (was Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from?) In-Reply-To: <001c01c1d3aa$096ca260$9b7c63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37124 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda" wrote: > I think it can. The protection in Privet Drive is not a regional thing; they didn't plunk Harry down with a random family who lives in a naturally occurring safe area. The intimation is that Harry is safe there because of some magic having to do with being with his own kin, his family. If Dumbledore were related to Harry, the same protection could be engineered for Harry with Dumbledore. There would be no need to involve the Dursleys; if Dumbledore were a relative, the old magic would protect Harry with him, too. So if Dumbledore is a relative, the secondary reason to put Harry there, even if it's a ghastly place- -that he is protected there--is no reason at all. Which brings me back to refusing to entertain the theory.> I have to agree with Amanda here. Not only is there clearly some important magical reason for Harry being raised by the Dursleys, but it said that the Dursleys are Harry's only remaining relatives. I do not recall even a hint of another relative being mentioned anywhere in any of the four books so far. Wouldn't it be just a little too cute if Dumbledore turned out to be Harry's great-grandfather anyway? JKR seems pretty intent on avoiding scenarios like that, which is partly, I think, why she is so popular. As far as Harry being just as safe with Dumbledore, he is obviously not. Voldemort has found his way to Harry three times now, no thanks to Dumbledore. I am not saying that Dumbledore is not doing a good job protecting Harry; if it weren't for him, who knows where Harry would have ended up after his parents deaths. However, Dumbledore knows that Hogwarts is just not *the* safest place for Harry. We also do not know if Dumbledore has a family of his own (of which Harry is not a part) to take care of, and running Hogwarts is a job demanding enough that bringing a small child there to raise would be very difficult for Dumbledore to do. Dumbledore is one of my favorite characters (possibly second after Harry himself), but he is not without faults, both inside and away from Hogwarts. I would also personally hate it if we found out he was Harry's relative and didn't tell him for so many years. That just would not be Dumbledore's style. --jenny from ravenclaw********************************************* From ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com Tue Mar 26 06:51:40 2002 From: ilovbrian_99 at yahoo.com (Melanie Brackney) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:51:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry the Saviour? (was Re: A quote, and RE: Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020326065140.64240.qmail@web10906.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37125 Eileen wrote Yesterday was Palm/Passion Sunday. Over breakfast, I was talking with my Dad about who might be redeemed in the end in HP. To my immense displeasure, he nominated Draco. :-) "But, what about Pettigrew?" I agree with what you are saying about Pettigrew and Judan Iscariot but I have to wonder why you don't see Draco Malfoy as being redeemed? I personally find Draco to be a very tragic character in HP, why? I feel sorry for the guy. I mean it's obvious that his father is a horrible man who in many ways is abusing his son, or it's definitely implied as such. I think JKR has a lot instore for Malfoy but then that's just my oppinion. Melanie Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT ________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. l --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aiz24 at hotmail.com Fri Mar 29 11:09:56 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:09:56 -0500 Subject: MoM, Nimbus, Fate, Voldemort, Potters' house, Other books Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37126 GulPlum wrote: >On the other hand, the usage (Ministry *OF* Magic - Muggle terminology >would make it the Ministry *FOR* Magic) would indicate that the MoM has >evolved separately from the rest of the political system Now, this is just the kind of thing we non-Brits don't get unless someone points it out. In the U.S. edition, it's Minister OF Magic and Ministry OF Magic, conforming to U.S. usage (that is, in the U.S. the equivalents are Secretary and Department, but it's always OF, never FOR. Department of State, Secretary of the Treasury). But, you see, when we read the UK editions it says Minister FOR Magic but Ministry OF Magic, and I assumed that that reflected British usage; I had no clue that JKR was doing anything unusual with the MoM. Durned if I can wring any significance of it, but you're doing an impressive job at it. *** Jenett wrote: >In the schools I've gone to, it's quite common for there to be *some* >discretionary funds that teachers or faculty can use or apply to use for >various reasons. Your argument that spending discretionary money on something like a broom has precedent is convincing, but when you talk about the students who get laptops at your school, you're talking about students whose parents can't afford to buy them for them. Harry's rich. Why doesn't McGonagall sidle up to him and say "You're going to need a really good broom to be Seeker--here's the order form" and let him pay for it himself? (I agree, GulPlum, we're scraping the bottom of the barrel fussing about such things, but what else can we dooooooo? It's so loooooong 'til OoP.) *** Pippin wrote: >I don't think JKR subscribes to the "one man" theory of history. Look what >she has Harry say when Hagrid blames himself for giving away Fluffy's >secret: >"Hagrid, he'd have found out somehow, this is Voldemort we're talking >about, he'd have found out even if you hadn't told him." >There's also Dumbledore's words to Harry when he blames himself for letting >Pettigrew get away. >"The consequences of our actions are always so complicated, so diverse, >that predicting the future is a difficult business indeed..." >The implication is that eventually, with or without Wormtail, Voldie would >have found some way to come back. >Since Harry believes, as Hagrid does, that Voldemort's return was >inevitable, . . . Hm. The opposite of the 'one man' theory is not 'everything that happens is inevitable.' Nor do I think Harry was sure Voldemort would come back. He, along with Ron and Hermione, is "shocked" when Hagrid says "knew he was going ter come back" at the end of GoF (37). Harry has feared it since Pettigrew's escape, but he doesn't go through 4 as if he thinks Voldemort's eventual return is inevitable. I think it's hard for us to realize just how shocking Voldemort's return is because we're reading a dramatic work, not living in Harry's world, and so *we* know it's going to happen. It has to, dramatically speaking. But Harry is living a real life, in which one imagines the worst happening but holds out hope that it won't. Dumbledore's suspicion of divination is not at all in the spirit of "whatever is written in the stars will happen and all we can do is wait for it to unfold," but rather in the "we can't predict the outcome of our actions with certainty." Otherwise the flavor of that scene in PA would be one of "nothing you do makes any difference"--but Dumbledore doesn't believe that at all. Harry saved Sirius and Buckbeak and created a debt between him and Peter; or, to shift from a utilitarian to a Kantian perspective, he acted out of his own morality rather than trying to secondguess the consequences. He acted like James (or like he thinks James would have, affirmed by others): with honor, courage and integrity. >. . . he is not likely to think, well, if Pettigrew hadn't brought him back >none of this would have happened. Instead he'll think, well, I and my >friends are alive because I did what my father would have done. And one hopes, with time, he'll think, "well, whatever else comes of it, I did what my father would have done." I'm not suggesting that we can shut our eyes to the actual *consequences* of our actions, but Harry is learning a tough lesson: no matter how nobly you act, you cannot guarantee that the outcome will be good. This doesn't obliviate moral decisionmaking nor reduce human choice to a toss of the dice. It just makes things a lot scarier. *** I really love the Voldemort antichrist stuff. I have nothing to add to David, Dicentra, Caius and Eloise's eloquence, but just want to applaud you for turning an offhand remark of mine into a solid theological point--and, of course, a kick-ass filk . (I also agree with Boggles that resurrection and sacrifice are universal, not solely Christian, themes.) Dicentra wrote: >Anyway, I don't think that there are many parallels between >Voldemort's following and a sect (cult did you mean?) because there's >quite a bit missing. The usual criticism of cults is that one >charismatic person is bamboozling a lot of gullible people out of >their lives and property (emphasis on property) and that they've lost >the ability to think for themselves. Cult leaders accomplish this >primarily by isolating people on a compound and designating it a >Utopia where We The Chosen will make our paradise. Ah, but Voldemort has one power that the most ardent Muggle brainwasher lacks: the Imperius curse. It's true that his followers are not, and don't appear ever to have been, isolated from the rest of their society (and I would note that not all cults engage in this actual physical separation), but in addition to the Muggle tools of torture, psychological pressure, charisma, etc., he has the literal ability to overcome his followers' will. Some people can resist it, but as we see in GF, they are rare. *** Catlady wrote: >The house at Godric's Hollow in which James and Lily were living in hiding, >until it was blown up as a result of Voldemort's attack on the Potters, was >a Muggle house. I'm sorry, I wasn't clear about my confusion . I understand why a House-Elf might not be attached to a Muggle house (though if their connection is to the house, not the owner, as George implies, then they might well be lurking in many a Muggle manor). What I don't understand is where we get the idea that James and Lily lived in a Muggle house. All we know about it is that it belonged to a witch and wizard, was in Godric's Hollow (which sounds like a historically wizarding village, or the connection to Gryffindor is just a wild coincidence) and (going by the Celluloid that Must Not Be Named) looked like, well, a regular house except that the baby's mobile had owls on it. Since we haven't seen wizard houses, we have no way of judging whether the Potters' house was unusual for the WW. *** JKR published PS in 1997, so she couldn't have been ripping off Colfer, since Artemis Fowl was first published in 2001. (As for the other way around: Colfer could have been ripping off JKR, though I haven't heard any real striking similarities.) Platform 13 was published in 1994, which makes a ripoff extremely unlikely if JKR did begin work on her series in 1992, but it's possible. (She can't be lying about taking five years to outline the series and write PS, she just can't be. If she could write as fast as ripping off Ibbotsen would require, we'd have had OoP months ago . . . ) Wizard's Hall, which does predate PS, is a sweet book with various similarities, though Yolen and Rowling have very different styles and their main characters are radically different. I don't see any more overlap between WH and PS than between any two of any number of kids-who-are-magical books throughout literary history. Amy Z who wants to know where the Lego taker-aparter was when *she* was little and couldn't get the bricks apart --------------------------------------------------------- "=Wow!=" said Dennis, as though nobody in their wildest dreams could hope for more than being thrown into a storm-tossed, fathoms-deep lake and pushed out of it again by a giant sea-monster. -HP and the Goblet of Fire --------------------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From scaryfairymary at hotmail.com Mon Mar 25 23:28:25 2002 From: scaryfairymary at hotmail.com (pigwidgeon2k) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 23:28:25 -0000 Subject: Harry as Arthur? WAS: Harry the Saviour? In-Reply-To: <005e01c1d382$2b014fc0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37127 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" wrote: > 4 - Someone (lady of the lake-esqe) will give Harry a special weapon (wand?) to help him fight V. after his special wand is broken/lost. Interesting. Moaning Myrtle does hang around in the lake quite a lot and obviously has a bit if a thing for Harry. Anything could be lying around on the bottom of that lake that would be useful for our hero. However, I don't think Harry's wand will get lost or broken before the final showdown, considering he was clearly *meant* to have the wand for a great purpose (getting V.). In all reality, as much and all as we love Harry, he simply doesnt have the skills or the power to overpower such a strong wizard as V. without the special connection of their wands. I'm probably WAY off but anyway there you go, it's been ages since i've had the time to read any posts. :( -Mary- From Edblanning at aol.com Fri Mar 29 11:28:06 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:28:06 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] What to do with Pettigrew, once captured? Message-ID: <137.bd71d18.29d5a9c6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37128 In a message dated 29/03/02 07:09:00 GMT Standard Time, oppen at cnsinternet.com writes: > However, this still leaves us with the question of what to _do_ with little > Peter. Azkaban? It obviously can't hold an Animagus, although a _known_ > Animagus may be a different story---we don't know how many wizards and > witches go there, or how long it's been there, and they may have not set it > up to handle Animagi. Dementor smooch? Maybe. I have no qualms about > executing a criminal who has proven that he's dangerous enough, and little > Peter's about as harmless as a coral snake---the more dangerous for not > _looking_ dangerous. > > Well, you know, there *is* a way of keeping him in Azkaban, if we take a leaf out of Hermione's book. If he is forced to transform, he can be held in a suitable rat cage, or tank, with an unbreakable charm on it to prevent his breaking it by becoming human again. .......................... Jenny from Ravenclaw agrees with Amanda that Dumbledore cannot be related to Harry: >I have to agree with Amanda here. Not only is there clearly some >important magical reason for Harry being raised by the Dursleys, but >it said that the Dursleys are Harry's only remaining relatives. I do >not recall even a hint of another relative being mentioned anywhere >in any of the four books so far. Wouldn't it be just a little too >cute if Dumbledore turned out to be Harry's great-grandfather >anyway? JKR seems pretty intent on avoiding scenarios like that, >which is partly, I think, why she is so popular. There is one place where Harry's other relatives appear, in the Mirror of Erised, where he sees at least ten other people standing behind him. The interpretation of this depends on how we understand the mirror to work. One might expect that Harry sees an imaginary family, simply one that he desires, but we are obviously supposed to believe from the descriptions of his parents (he hasn't yet seen a picture of them and IIRC, he hasn't had them described to him yet), that this is his real family. Which begs the question of what happened to the rest of them? Oh, and of course, if Dumbledore was a relative, I think Harry might have recognised him amongst the ten, which was the point I meant to make. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Fri Mar 29 11:46:59 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:46:59 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] MoM, Nimbus, Fate, Voldemort, Potters' house, Other books Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37129 Amy Z writes: > GulPlum wrote: > > >On the other hand, the usage (Ministry *OF* Magic - Muggle terminology > >would make it the Ministry *FOR* Magic) would indicate that the MoM has > >evolved separately from the rest of the political system > > Now, this is just the kind of thing we non-Brits don't get unless someone > points it out. In the U.S. edition, it's Minister OF Magic and Ministry OF > Magic, conforming to U.S. usage (that is, in the U.S. the equivalents are > Secretary and Department, but it's always OF, never FOR. Department of > State, Secretary of the Treasury). But, you see, when we read the UK > editions it says Minister FOR Magic but Ministry OF Magic, and I assumed > that that reflected British usage; I had no clue that JKR was doing > anything > unusual with the MoM. > > Durned if I can wring any significance of it, but you're doing an > impressive > job at it. > > I missed the original to which you're replying, but I think we may be making mountains out of molehills here. I have said before that politics is not my stong suit, but as I understand it, we now only have one government department still known as a 'ministry', the Ministry *of* Defence. The others are Departments *for* whatever. The ministers in charge are normally referred to as the Defence Minister, the Sports Minister etc. The big difference as I pointed out before, is that the MoM itself is divided into departments. My original post was sent 15/02/02, if anyone's interested. Eloise (chuffed at being included in the 'eloquent' category) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Fri Mar 29 13:23:22 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:23:22 -0000 Subject: Voldemort as Christ figure; Ira, not Cole In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37130 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kscottmccormick" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Philip Nel wrote: > > > > While it's true that (as CMC points out) the phoenix is a symbol of > resurrection, it (he) is also a character in E. Nesbit's _The Phoenix > and the Carpet_. His symbolic value may be as likely tied to E. > Nesbit as to Christian symbolism. > > > The symbolism is not necessarily Christian. I would say the phoenix > represents rebirth more than resurrection. Symbols - as opposed to allegories - are (as Freud said) open to hyperinterpretation: that is, they can be (indeed, must be) interpreted on multiple levels to be fully understood. Interpreting JKR's Phoenix in an alchemical manner, or establishing a literary link to Nesbit does not invalidate the Christian interpretation. - CMC From alina at distantplace.net Tue Mar 26 03:44:50 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:44:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Prof. Sprout's First Name & Salazar References: Message-ID: <005301c1d478$96336840$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37131 ----- Original Message ----- From: nyarth_meow To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 8:00 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Prof. Sprout's First Name & Salazar Which reminds me, I was wondering where Salazar Slytherin's name originates. I know Slytherin is what a snake does, but does Salazar have any connotations, or did JKR make it up? -Nyarth This excerpt is taken from "What's in a Name!" http://www.theninemuses.net/hp/ "Antonio Salazar was the fascist dictator of Portugal for 36 years until his death in 1968. Though never officially an ethnic cleanser, he was a colonialist, who ruthlessly put down ethnic uprisings his his country's colonies in Africa. His name is perhaps used as a reference to the dictators past, such as Hitler, who believed in ethnic purity, just as Slytherin did. (Taken directly from Encyclopedia Potterica) " Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From uncmark at yahoo.com Tue Mar 26 01:56:18 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 01:56:18 -0000 Subject: Gringotts and wizard-guardian Was (Re: Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37132 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" wrote: > I posted before a question about Gringott's Bank. In Goblet of > Fire (Ch. 5 & 10) Mrs. Weasley offers to pick up Harry's school > supplies while he is at the world cup and when he returns he finds > she not only shopped, but got him gold out of his vault. How? He > never gave her permission(although he would have given it willingly). "zoehooch" wrote: > Just because there isn't an explicit scene in the book where Harry > gives Mrs. Weasley the key or some kind of formal permission to > enter his vault, doesn't neccessarily mean that such an occurance > didn't happen. To have such a scene doesn't really advance the > plot. I suspect that JKR had to make extensive cuts to GoF just to > get it to its present length. You have a point, Zoe. I rechecked Sorceror's Stone that went into great detail about Harry's first Gringott's visit. In Chapter 5, Hagrid has the key to Harry's vault and a letter from Dumbledore to get into vault 713. I MISSED THAT THE FIRST TEN READINGS! There is no mention of the key in further books, so it is either one of 100 details that JKR didn't have room to write or maybe the Goblins will keep the key for famous Harry Potter. As for the letter, we now have CANON proof that the goblins accept letters for vault access. (They no doubtedly have some goblin magic against forgeries) My point is what was Hagrid doing with the key to Harry's vault anyway? I assume Dumbledore gave him the key but he isn't Harry's guardian , Uncle Vernon is... or is he? My hypothesis is that Harry is a VERY IMPORTANT orphan of wizards with Muggle relatives. In his unique case, the MoM named Dumbledore his wizard guardian to handle decisions about Harry's education and wizard riches. Consider that otherwise Hagrid's acts in Sorceror's Stone amounted to kidnapping and that as a minor Uncle Vernon should have had full access to Harry's gold. (From PofA, we see Gringotts does exchange wizard and Muggle money.) Opinions? Uncmark From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Mar 29 15:26:54 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:26:54 -0000 Subject: Gringotts and wizard-guardian Was (Re: Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from? ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37133 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" wrote: My point is what was Hagrid doing with the key to > Harry's vault anyway? I assume Dumbledore gave him the key but he isn't Harry's guardian , Uncle Vernon is... or is he? > > My hypothesis is that Harry is a VERY IMPORTANT orphan of wizards with Muggle relatives. In his unique case, the MoM named Dumbledore his wizard guardian to handle decisions about Harry's education and wizard riches. > > Consider that otherwise Hagrid's acts in Sorceror's Stone amounted to kidnapping and that as a minor Uncle Vernon should have had full access to Harry's gold. (From PofA, we see Gringotts does exchange wizard and Muggle money.) It's actually common, especially when large sums are involved, for parents to designate different people as custodial and financial guardians for a minor child. They might want the child to go to the care of a relative, but appoint a bank or another relative as trustee of their estate, to be used for the benefit of the child. My belief is that when James went into hiding, he gave both his invisibility cloak, which he wouldn't have needed while protected by Fidelius, and the key to his Gringotts vault, to Dumbledore. We don't know how Gringotts actually operates. Muggle banks don't keep the money you deposit on hand. Most of it is lent out. Of course it's possible that Gringotts works this way too, and that the gold isn't actually in the vault until an authorized person shows up to withdraw it. That would be one reason robbing the place is so difficult. On the other hand, high security vaults, like the one where the Stone was kept, would be more like a safety deposit box, and function as an actual repository. As to how Sirius paid for the Firebolt, in the British edition of PoA, Sirius mentions a vault number in his letter. His account may have been numbered, not named, like the Swiss bank accounts of old. Sirius may have ordered the broom in Harry's name, but withdrawn the funds with a number and a password. Since the vault account was only identified by a number, the Ministry could not connect it with Sirius. Pippin who worked in the banking business for a while From editor at texas.net Fri Mar 29 16:45:19 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:45:19 -0600 Subject: OT but Important-->Check your yahoo profile to avoid spam Message-ID: <007e01c1d741$1e63fd40$5a7c63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 37134 I apologize; I ordinarily neither forward things nor spread alarmist messages. In this case I believe it is warranted. The following came from a quite reliable listmember of another Yahoo group I'm on. He verified it, and I just have. I know not all the main list members are on the peripheral lists, hence my post to everyone. What I think must have happened is that when Yahoo did its "routine maintenance" or whatever, when the groups were down for a weekend a little bit ago, everyone's marketing preferences got reset. Everyone's in for a World O'Spam, in virtual *and* actual modes (it re-set the ways you get information delivered to include via U.S. mail and phone!) unless they go change it back. I just had to re-set mine. Instructions on how to fix this egregious invasion are in the forwarded message below. --Amandageist ----- Original Message ----- From: "Blaise de Cormeilles" Subject: check your yahoo profile to avoid spam > ----- Forwarded message from a Yahoo group ----- > > **If you're using Yahoogroups (and you probably are, since this list > is run through Yahoogroups), make sure you go and change your profile. > Yahoo has just made a sneaky change to everybody's 'Marketing > Preferences', the result of which will be a load of spam. To change > them back here's what you need to do to avoid all the ads: > > Go to My Groups and click on Account Info, verify your password if it > asks you to, and your Yahoo ID card comes up. Click on 'Edit your > Marketing Preferences' and change ALL the Yes buttons to NO. > Click Save Changes. > > I've done mine already, and I was shocked to see what they'd signed me > up to receive without telling me! If you actually gave them your > address and phone # in your profile, they've signed you up for phone > and postal spam as well as email. Make sure they are marked NO as > well.** > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > This applies to anyone who has *any* form of Yahoo ID -- groups, > messenger, email... I've confirmed that it's for real. > > Blaise > -- > Jim Trigg, Lord High Everything Else O- /"\ > SKA Seigneur Blaise de Cormeilles \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN > Silver Nautilus Pursuivant, Atlantia X HELP CURE HTML MAIL > Webmaster, Academy of S. Gabriel / \ > From zoehooch at yahoo.com Fri Mar 29 17:10:25 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:10:25 -0000 Subject: Wizard Guardianship / House Elves / Godric's Hollow /breaking a Memory Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37135 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > The evidence is because of the Celluloid-Thing-That-Must-Not-Be- > Named. It showed the Muggle house. It was a sadly ordinary Muggle > house, not an old castle nor even an old cottage. > I thought it looked like a perfectly nice house. Are you saying that wizards cannot live in a house that was built by Muggles, that house built by Muggles cannot be magical? This seems like a pretty far-fetched assertion to me. One of the things that's wonderful about the Harry Potter books is how we learn that wizard families, such as the Weasleys, are quite like muggle families in very many ways. Why wouldn't James and Lily want to raise their baby in a nice, warm house? Of course, I've always assumed that Godric's Hollow was some kind of magical subdivision where young wizard families with some money might enjoy living. Suzanne From abigailnus at yahoo.com Fri Mar 29 17:17:47 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:17:47 -0000 Subject: Arthur Weasley, With Imperius Curse (WAS: What's In A Name?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37136 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > Debbie wrote, about the Weasleys: > > > Debbie, waiting for someone to prove her wrong by posting the > > sinister Weasley backstory (no, I don't think Molly's sandwich > > crimes will do) > > the same sentence, comes running around the corner, gasping for > breath, clutching at her side, and waving a platter of Arthur-Weasley- > With-Imperius-Curse teacakes madly about in the air.> SNIP lots of good stuff about Arthur-Weasly-with-Imperius > I believe that Arthur Weasley might have been one of them. For > one thing, at the time he 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. From Ludo Bagman's trial, we already know that the > organization sought to make use of the ministry's younger and more > vulnerable workers. It seems quite likely to me that they would > have done so 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." If I might be allowed to veer away from the topic for a second, but thinking about Arthur's backstory has brought this to mind: 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 senteces 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. My guess is that Arthur worked under Moody, possibly with Frank Longbottom and perhaps Amos Diggory too (after all, if Arthur bails Moody out due to old loyalties, it might be Diggory's motive as well.) After the fall the aurors soon ran out of a reason to exist, and the more junior members of the department were given the opportunity to make a career change - after all, they could hardly throw these brave men out on the streets with no job and marketable skills, after having served their people so bravely (and probably dying by the bushel too.) So Arthur was made head of Misuse of Muggle Artifacts, and Amos Diggory was given Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures. Moody, being much older than the two of them, and less eager for a new career, was probably given a golden watch and a nice pension (or not so nice, if you want to believe Rita Skeeter's claims that he was pushed out of the ministry when he could no longer tell a handshake from an assassination attempt. > Although "several hands rose 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.'" Can I just say that I love this idea? I'm not sure where I stand on Arthur-with-Imperius as a whole, although I suppose it could work even if he was an auror - after all, Imperiusing an auror could be very useful - but the idea that fake!Moody targeted the three kids in his class whose parents had suffered from the Unforgiveable curses is truly beautiful. Abigail From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Mar 29 17:30:57 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:30:57 -0000 Subject: Will Winky go to the Weasleys? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37137 Lucky Kari wrote: > I think it'd be very out-of character. We've seen how devoted Winky > was to the Crouches. Do you think she'd leave caring for Crouch Jr. > even after that... ummmm... fiasco? I personally think that Winky is the most tragic character in HP. Uncmark: >>Agreed Winky's Tragic, but I can't see JKR leaving her nursing the leftover shell of Barty Crouch (I'm picturing braindead unable to feed or clean himself) I picture her and Dobby together and can see Hermione working with them spearheading SPEW.<< I'm picturing Winky recovering from her Butterbeer addiction so that she can care for Helplessvegetable!Barty. Do the Elves know how to read? Dobby steals Harry's letters, but doesn't appear to have read them. Maybe, when Hermione suggests that Winky might occupy herself by reading out loud to Barty, (not that Barty is capable of listening, but Winky will persuade herself that he is) Winky will tell her that House Elves is not knowing how. Perhaps the Elves will learn to read, and with education, come to desire freedom. I am pretty sure that we are in for some devastating scenes of comic mayhem when rebel House Elves sabotage their Death Eater masters, causing utter domestic chaos. Uncmark: >>But then again, the US never bothered passing the ERA.<< I was going to make a very elaborate commentary about this, but in the course of researching it, I discovered that world wide and throughout history, the most common homologue ( term used in analogies or comparisons) for "slave" is wife or woman. That says it all, really. Pippin who thinks this is a very appropriate topic to discuss during Passover week From catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk Mon Mar 25 14:59:51 2002 From: catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk (catorman) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 14:59:51 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Sluggish Yahoo. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37138 Hello everyone, As I'm sure you've noticed, Yahoo is acting rather sluggishly at the moment, and some of you may be experiencing a time lag between posting and seeing your messages appear on the list. There is also a small risk that some of your posts are getting lost. Therefore, I'd like to advise everyone to keep copies of their posts, just in case they go astray. Also, to avoid the risk of multiple posts apearing, please could you be patient and let a reasonable amount of time elapse before reposting. Thanks! Catherine The Magical Moderator Team. From uncmark at yahoo.com Fri Mar 29 18:11:49 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:11:49 -0000 Subject: Winky and Houseelf mistreatment Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37139 Concerning Winky's treatment Grey Wolf wrote: > notice that, appart from forcing Winky to go to high places, she's > never been mistreated, and that was *her* idea in the first place catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > It seems that Winky had a fair amount of *power* in the Crouch > household. Junior's narrative includes: "I was always with the > house-elf.... She persuaded my father to give me occasional > treats.... Winky talked my father into [allowing me to attend the > Quidditch World Cup]." Also, she kept interjecting: "Say no more, > Master Barty, say no more, you is getting your father into > trouble!" Her Master, Senior, does what she wants, and she sccolds > her Master, Junior. I'm not sure what wizarding law is for conspiracy and accessories, but there are the UNFORGIVABLE curses which according to the Harry Potter lexicon are "known as Unforgivable because using them on another human being can result in a life term in Azkaban." Crouch Sr. used Imperio on his escaped son not once but SEVERAL times over the course of a decade. Even if he had blanket permision to use the curses in his hunting of Death Eaters, I don't think the coverage would extend to his use ogf the spell on Crouch Jr. PLUS there is the mater of conspiracy of the Jailbreak AND harboring a fugative for over a decade. Does Azkaban take elves? What is Winky's defense "I was following master's orders!" How's this for a subplot for future books. While ignoring the Voldemort problem, Fudge tries to show he's tough on crime and sets about publicizing his peosecution of crime. He shows the soul-drained Barty Crouc and then puts Winky on trial for her part in the jailbreak, harboring a fugitive, and accessory to the Imperio curse. HRH defend her in court and the elf community revolts in her support. Uncmark From uncmark at yahoo.com Fri Mar 29 18:34:09 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:34:09 -0000 Subject: Memory Charm Re: W G / House Elves / Gs Hollow /breaking a Memory Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37140 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., > Finwitch wrote: > > > I *hope* that torture isn't the *only* way [to break a Memory > > Charm]. "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > I should have put in my two Sickles' worth earlier in this thread > that assumes that the way to break a Memory Charm is by torturer. > The source for that claim appears to be Barty Junior: "He had > captured Bertha Jorkins in Albania. He had tortured her. (snip) He > tortured her until he broke through the Memory Charm." But Barty > wasn't there; his evidence is just hearsay. > > I don't find Voldemort himself saying he used torture. At the > beginning of GoF, he says to Wormtail: "I killed Bertha because I > had to. She was fit for nothing after my questioning, quite > useless. (snip) But Memory Charms can be broken by a powerful > wizard, as I proved when I questioned her." In the Death Eater > circle, he says: "for -- with a little persuasion -- she became a > veritable mine of information. (snip) ...but the means I used to > break the Memory Charm upon her were powerful, and when I had > extreated all useful information from her, her mind and body were > both damaged beyond repair." > > Voldemort says "questioning", "persuasion", and "means", all of > which are known as euthemisms for torture, but he also says "a > powerful wizard". Generally, a 'powerful wizard' is a wizard with > powerful magic, altho' in the Potterverse it could also mean a > wizard in charge of approving or rejecting expense account claims > for MoM employees. Neither kind of power is particularly relevant > to torture. > I believe that Voldemort broke the Memory Charm on Bertha by some > kind of spell, some kind of Finite Incantatem. Because the Memory > Charm was so strong, the Removal Charm had to be even stronger, and > it was the side-effects of such strong magic that damaged her. A > strong Memory Charm can do damage (as people have quoted in > relation to Neville): "He put a very powerful Memory Charm on her > to make her forget what she'd found out. Too powerful. He said it > damaged her memory permanently." So I believe that a powerful > Memory Charm Removal Charm can do even more damage, even physical > damage. Would anyone defend that Valdemort would hesitate to tortue Bertha Jorkins? As far as 'strong magic' I would think Crucio would would be strong enough to counteract any charm and it would be one of Voldemort's favorite spells. I do agree that a spell such as Finite Incantatem should work with a memory charm. Voldemort probabley used some scanning spell to check Bertha for enchantments to discover the memory charm in the first place. Which leads me to one of my favorite subjects, Neville's absentmindedness and his possible memory charm. I believe Neville's absentmindedness might be caused by a strong memory charm placed to help him deal with the trauma of seeing his parents tortured (or possibly himself) Neville was probably between ages 1-3 and such spells probably affected a young wizard. I'm guessing subconciously Neville is working for a cure for himself and/or his parents possibly in Herbology. He may either find it himself or possibly have his charm beaten out of him by either Snape's mistreatment or hore heroically he might be tortured by a Crucio by and attacking DE. He might even take an attack in shielding one of the HRH trio proving his bravery. Any opinions Uncmark From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Mon Mar 25 12:35:21 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 12:35:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore is NOT a relative (was Where did the Nimbus 2000 come from?) In-Reply-To: <001c01c1d3aa$096ca260$9b7c63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37141 ---> > I think it can. The protection in Privet Drive is not a regional thing; they > didn't plunk Harry down with a random family who lives in a naturally > occurring safe area. The intimation is that Harry is safe there because of > some magic having to do with being with his own kin, his family. If > Dumbledore were related to Harry, the same protection could be engineered > for Harry with Dumbledore. There would be no need to involve the Dursleys; > if Dumbledore were a relative, the old magic would protect Harry with him, > too. So if Dumbledore is a relative, the secondary reason to put Harry > there, even if it's a ghastly place--that he is protected there--is no > reason at all. Which brings me back to refusing to entertain the theory. > > --Amanda One must also look at the practical side, how would Dumbledore raise a small child as well as take care of his duties at the school? I don't think Dumbledore knew what the Dursley's would be like and I don't think he still truly understands how poorly they treat Harry. Harry has never given specifics as to the kind of treatment he has received only that they are not nice to live with. We still don't know why he is protected on Privet Drive, but we do know through interviews with JKR that we will learn more about the Dursley's in the next book and that might give more insight to the protection Harry has there (is he still protected with Mrs. Figg when she is babysitting?) Gretchen From a.levin at first-class.norcol.ac.uk Fri Mar 29 17:48:09 2002 From: a.levin at first-class.norcol.ac.uk (wibble_flibble) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:48:09 -0000 Subject: HP and Similarities to Other Books (Worst Witch/Secret Platform 13) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37142 Hi again. I will try and answer you a bit at a time! First: The Worst Witch was written by Jill Murphy - there are three or four books in the Worst Witch series, but apart from the similarities you already mentioned (Witches, a school for witches and the blond haired baddie!) the two are quite different. The Worst Witch is a much more light hearted read, and the whole plot and background is much less involved and not as dark or as multi- layered as HP (IMHO). The books are a good read though, and quite humorous, so I do recommend them! Next point: I didn't mean that Artemis Fowl was like HP, but that it had similarities to Eva Ibbotson's book, the Secret of Platform 13, especially it's "bodyguard" characters. Thirdly, the actual similarities. Well, I had a look at the "anti Harry Potter" website that someone pointed me to, to see if they had noticed the same similarities that I had. Here is a combined effort between that list and my observations (I have missed out the the little ones which I thought were not as important): 1. The Prince, who is kidnapped as a baby and brought up in our "real world", away from the magic of his people. He is treated badly, and is a goodhearted soul who always seemed to have something magical about him, and never seemed very surprised when he saw magical things happen. Like Harry, although he doesn't realise it, he is very well known in his own world (for different reasons of course - this hero is a Prince). 2.The rescue party who come to bring him "home" are an odd bunch, not exactly reminicent of Hagrid and Co, but at least as weird and wonderful as them! The rescue team includes Cornelius, a batty old wizard, and Hans, a gentle giant. 3.Ben lives with a nasty family called the Trottles, who bear a striking resemblance to the Dursleys, right down to their fat and spoiled little brat of a son, the same age as Ben. They make Ben sleep in a "windowless cupboard", just like Harry. 4. At the time the story takes place, Mrs Trottle has arranged for Ben to be sent away to a horrible school with a reputation which reminded me of St Brutus School for Incurably Criminal Boys (or whatever it was exactly, I can't remember). Meanwhile Raymond Trottle, like Dudley, is sent to a ridiculously expensive private school. 5.The Gump on platform thirteen, and the secret Platform 9 3/4 in HP. 6. The Mistmakers on the island adore the sound of music which makes them sigh and create a mist. This reminded me of Fluffy in the first HP book. I am certainly not an "anti-Harry potter" person - I thoroughly enjoyed all the books, and authors, artists and musical composers have been recycling and developing others' work for many centuries - that is how we progress, according to Bartok, although I would need to look up the exact quote. Yes, I recommend the Secret of Platform Thirteen - all "coincidences" aside, it is an amusing book, although a little short. Interested in your response. Avital From kerelsen at quik.com Tue Mar 26 00:53:14 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 19:53:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry as Arthur? WAS: Harry the Saviour? Message-ID: <007101c1d460$9e3050c0$9621b0d8@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 37143 This is a resend as my original seems to have vanished into the distant ether of cyberspace... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laura Huntley" To: Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 5:20 PM Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Harry as Arthur? WAS: Harry the Saviour? > While we're discussing parallels between HP and Christ, I'd like to point out some similarities between the series and Arthurian *legend* < > Obvious connections: > SNIP > > 8 - The sorcerer's stone -- the holy grail -- you know what I'm getting at. For those persons who think of the Holy Grail as Malory's cup from the Last Supper, an even closer connection is found when you find out that Wolfram Von Eschenbach's Gral in PARZIVAL isn't a cup at all, but a magical stone that grants eternal life and is a miraculous provider of plenty (the instantly appearing feasts at Hogwarts ties into this aspect). The Gral is a Philosopher's Stone in all but name. There are a lot of other PARZIVAL connecctions as well. To me, Harry is not Arthur; Harry is Parzival. My reasoning: 1. Parzival is reared outside of his birthright, kept willfully in ignorance of it by his mother _in_order_to_protect_him_from_his_father's_enemies._ Dumbledore's reasons for placing him with the Dursley's probably had as much to do with protecting him from any remaining DEs who might be around and wanting to get revenge as it did with protecting him from the effects of growing up famous. And protection could be considered Petunia's reasoning for keeping Harry in the dark as well... it was wizarding that got Lily and James killed. Keeping Harry from that would keep them all "safe" from the danger Petunia saw in it.) 2. Parzival's got incredible talent as a knight with hardly any training (more or less "this is a horse, this is a saddle, this is a lance--you stick it in the bad guy...), winning his very first battle against the best of any Knight that had ever appeared at Arthur's court at the time (It wasn't Lancelot, BTW, but the Red Knight.) Harry is very powerful even when he doesn't understand what he's doing--His initial defeat of Voldemort when Harry was a mere toddler is the obvious parallel here. Harry's subsequent magical accidents are pretty spectacular compared to what seems to be implied that other non-Muggle kids do before they're realized to be wizards and witches. 3. Parzival makes mistakes due to not asking the right questions at the right time--at the Gral Castle when he doesn't ask Anfortas about his wound and the Gral procession--condemning Anfortas to more agony and himself to a period of penitance and repentance, with ultimate redemption coming from doing the right thing finally. Harry never seems to go ask Dumbledore the right questions at the right time, and causes himself and others more grief in his quest to fulfill his destiny. But even in GOF we see he is getting better at asking the right questions of the right people, even if he hasn't reached perfection in that yet! Like Parzival, Harry learns from his mistakes. 4. In the end, Parzival heals Anfortas, wins the Gral and becomes the Gral King. He becomes ruler of a once corrupted kingdom that has now reached such perfection that it sends out Gral Knights to assist other lands and to bring peace and stability to them. Harry's ultimate quest is to defeat Voldemort, but I also see him as being the one who will remove the corruption currently found in the wizarding world. One way or another, I think Harry will be behind the downfall of Cornelius Fudge, and that the Ministry of Magic is going to end up with a thorough housecleaning, removing its corruption. I can see the renewed MoM cautiously re-establishing ties with the Muggle world in beneficial ways, once Harry's quest is complete. SNIP > What all of this might mean/some future connections? > > 1 - Ron might betray Harry (Lancelot is Arthur's most trusted lieutenant, betrays him) I have considered this possibility... I do hope it doesn't happen though! > > 2 - Maybe theory that Dumbledore somehow set up James and Lily's relationship in order to get Harry (the boy that can vanquish Voldy) actually holds some water (I'd really hate to think this). I don't have a problem with Dumbledore being a beneficient manipulator of people and events, but I agree, the idea that he set up James and Lily merely to produce a special son really disturbs me... I can't remember which of the legends suggests that Arthur's parents were merely tools of Merlin and his goals for the future, but I do recall reading at least one version with that point to it. I didn't care for it too much. And when I think of the trickery that Merlin did, changing Uther Pendragon's appearance to that of Ingraine's husband, I shudder to think of someone else being transformed to fool Lily... (Ugh... I think I just got an idea for a REALLY dark Snapefic...) > 3 - :( Harry dies at the end. Oh, heck, I don't like any of these theories I'm coming up with. Maybe I should just stop now. Although ??!! in legend it is always said that Arthur is supposed to rise again -- tying into the resurrection theme throughout the books. Or, if we go back to the Parzival story, Harry will NOT die, but will succeed in his quest and live a long life. Parzival, it is implied, will live forever at the Gral Castle, as a just ruler. Not all Arthurian legend has the protagonist die at the end. Most people are more familiar with the legends that are derived from Malory's LE MORT D'ARTHUR rather than Wolfram's or Chretien de Troyes' works, and thus end up with "the world is doomed no matter what good men do, etc." as the interpretation of Arthur and his knights. Parzival's Gral remains on Earth to bless and provide for mankind, while Malory's Grail is taken up and removed from the Earth and hope goes with it. Parzival, although having majorly screwed up by failing to the one simple thing necessary to win the Gral the first time around, was able to fix his mistake and win his quest in the end, after a period of self-growth and maturing. Malory's knights, no matter how much they repent and try to mend their errors, are condemned to never achieve the Grail, and the one that does is so bloody perfect, he really can't be considered a representative of mankind at all. Harry Potter is our representative in the great battle of good versus evil in the wizarding world. He's human. He makes mistakes, and learns from them, and tries his best to do the right thing. He isn't perfect, but, like Parzival, shows that perfection is something that is gradually attained and not something that one is born into (like Malory's Galahad). Harry is the hope of wizards and witches precisely because he is not some paragon of unearthly virtue. He can say, "Don't follow Voldemort. Don't let evil take over you. Make the right choices." and has the best chance of being followed because he shows that you don't have to be perfect to say, "I will choose not to do evil today." If Harry were more like Galahad, I know I'd hate the books. I despise the "lily-white soul" characters that are supposed to be showing us what we should be doing to be successful... because I'm not like that. I have my flaws and I try to do my best... Harry Potter is an example of a flawed person who DOES do his best, and wins out despite his flaws, overcoming them. If he can do that, so can I. SNIP > 5 - Someone will trick Harry into trusting them, with adverse consequences (al la Morgan le Fay). Well, we've seen that already, in GOF... The fake Moody... Harry trusted him, and look what happened! SNIP > 7 - Umm..I have to go eat now. LOL! I know the feeling. I think you have brought up a lot of good points. As a student of medieval literature, I look for Arthurian (and even non-Arthurian medieval) connections in the more modern stuff I read and enjoy. Harry Potter has been a joy for me because it lends itself to this sort of interpretation so well. I just hope that my exhaustion after a weekend of chasing five kids hasn't made it too incoherent! And now I had better get off of this enjoyable hobby horse of mine, and back to the Comm Theory homework I should have been doing... Bernadette "Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art. It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival." -- C.S. Lewis (1898-1963). From porphyria at mindspring.com Tue Mar 26 01:59:00 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 20:59:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's oily hair Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37144 I'm always a little puzzled at the 'why is Snape's hair oily' question and how people either worry about it *very* literally (and argue, indeed quite reasonably, that some people just have oily hair) or they take it as a clue to something we don't already know (a side-effect from an anti-vampire potion, a dementor's hydrophobia, etc.). Maybe I'm being really boring here, but I've always felt that it lay squarely in the realm of iconographic characterization and hence a) misdirection leading us (and Harry) to see him as villainous (i.e. sleazy people have greasy hair); and then b) exactly the way you'd depict someone who is, well I hate to say it but, clinically depressed, or if that's too strong, beset with grief and self-hatred. I think my question here is why do people wonder about his hair and no one ever seems to wonder why he wears black all the time (something more obviously his own personal choice). Snape strikes me as someone who is *in mourning* and his irritability, bouts of rage and disdain for keeping a tidy appearance all express the same mental state. I think that idea ties in perfectly well with what we know of the Potterverse wherein nearly all of the adult characters are still traumatized in some way by the past and Dumbledore is practically the only person who can say "Voldemort" out loud. This is a society of people who have failed to recover. And Snape has fairly personal reasons to be in mourning; regardless of whether he's more grief-stricken at the loss of the Potters or his own fellow housemates, his generation was decimated. Not to mention his depression and self-hatred from whatever past actions he blames himself for. At least his outwardly expressed acrimony (both in looks an! d behavior) is easier to sympathize with than the tendency towards avoidance or under-rug sweeping in the manner of Crouch Sr., Fudge, Karkaroff, the Dursleys or any of the other characters who utterly fail to face up to the unpleasant realities in their lives. ~~Porphyria From editor at texas.net Fri Mar 29 20:31:20 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:31:20 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's oily hair References: Message-ID: <005e01c1d760$b27c3000$ee7663d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 37145 Porphyria appeared in a blinding flash of light and intoned Snape strikes me as someone who is *in mourning* and his irritability, bouts of rage and disdain for keeping a tidy appearance all express the same mental state. I think that idea ties in perfectly well with what we know of the Potterverse wherein nearly all of the adult characters are still traumatized in some way by the past and Dumbledore is practically the only person who can say "Voldemort" out loud. This is a society of people who have failed to recover. And Snape has fairly personal reasons to be in mourning; regardless of whether he's more grief-stricken at the loss of the Potters or his own fellow housemates, his generation was decimated. Not to mention his depression and self-hatred from whatever past actions he blames himself for. *blink* *blink* ::sits very still as great wave of This Feels Right washes over and soaks in::: Of course. ::goes off to find a hat to tip at Porphyria:: I may be losing more brain cells than I'm aware of, but I don't think anyone has ever put it in quite this way, or quite this light. I think you've snagged more than a bit of the truth here. *Brilliant* bit of looking up to recognize the forest when the rest of us are huddled over debating the types of trees, leaves, and mulch we've found. Can I forward your post to the Snapefans list, please, which is currently languishing in a cyclical bout of denigrating the closed-minded book-burner types? --Amanda, truly impressed to read something new under the sun on Snape, and really wishing she'd thought of that. From editor at texas.net Fri Mar 29 20:50:48 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:50:48 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: Wizard Guardianship / House Elves / Godric's Hollow /breaking a Memory Charm References: Message-ID: <007001c1d763$f23b6f00$ee7663d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 37146 > > Catlady wrote: > > > The house at Godric's Hollow in which James and Lily were living > > > in hiding, until it was blown up as a result of Voldemort's > > > attack on the Potters, was a Muggle house. > > > Upon what evidence do you base this assertion? I'm really curious > > about this. > > The evidence is because of the Celluloid-Thing-That-Must-Not-Be- > Named. It showed the Muggle house. It was a sadly ordinary Muggle > house, not an old castle nor even an old cottage. I may give you this one, although I point out that the CTTMNBN is not infallibly a reflection of JKR's intentions or thoughts--the example leaping out at me is Hagrid's hut, which JKR manifestly intended to be wooden, but which the CCTMNBN has of stone. So I'm not entirely convinced. In any case.... The fact seems to be that house-elves are unlikely to be attached to such a house, whether it is Muggle or magical down to the wainscoting; they live in old manors and castles, yada, yada. Okay. BUT, you didn't answer why house-elves couldn't live in Muggle old manors, castles, etc. They would not necessarily be perceived as what they are; their effects would be considered luck or happy coincidence, etc., but they could be there. In JKR's world, their attachment to such Muggle places could well have given rise to some of our fairy tales. --Amanda From bonnie at niche-associates.com Mon Mar 25 02:47:39 2002 From: bonnie at niche-associates.com (dicentra_spectabilis_alba) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 02:47:39 -0000 Subject: Corrected: Protections on Privet Drive & Put-Outer (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37147 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ecuman24" wrote: > Cindy writes: > > Yes, we have speculated about Harry's protection quite a bit. A > few > > months back, I started wondering if the Put-Outer might have > > something to do with the protections on Privet Drive. Most of what > > follows are my thoughts from that discussion, with a few new > tidbits > > tossed in. > > > > So. Why does Dumbledore uses the Put-Outer to extinguish and > > light the lamps on Privet Drive. Why doesn't he just use a wand? > Is > > this just because JKR doesn't yet want us to know about wands? Or > is > > something else really important going on? And why does JKR, a > master > > of inventing clever names like veritaserum and pensieve, resort to > a > > clunky name like Put-Outer? > > > > Then, when I went to see that Hollywood-production-that-we-are- not- > > supposed-to-discuss-on-this-list, I observed that a big chunk of > > valuable time is used watching Dumbledore use the Put-Outer in a > > rather slow and dramatic way. Why is so much attention (in the > book > > and movie) devoted to the Put-Outer in one of the crucial opening > > scenes? Why has there been no mention > > of it since, even though we sometimes see teachers (Lupin and > > Trelawney) dim or ignite lights at Hogwarts? > > I have mixed feelings to this post. Its a very well written and > thought out conversation. But any here goes: I don't think you > should be worrying about too much about how much "screen time" > and "page time" the Put Outers get. Remember, that this is a book > and the first book of a well thought out, spider web plot, kind of > world. An author ( and a director) need to introduce this world in a > controlled but tantalizing manner. The Putter Outer was a clever > tool by JKR to slowly introduce and spark our minds and imagination. > Remember, at the time she did not know this was going to be a huge > hit. Mostly everything written in the first chapter was for intro > and drama. BUT... you do bring about some good theories, one of > many, about Harry's protection. > Granted, JKR has to ease us into her imaginary world slowly, so as not to confuse us. But the orange light might actually mean or at least symbolize the protection. At the beginning of GoF, right after Harry awakens to a burning scar, he reaches for his glasses: "He put them on and his bedroom came into clearer focus, lit by a faint, misty orange light that was filtering through the curtains from the street lamp outside the window." (GoF 16; U.S. edition) This could be a simple setting of the scene, but I find it especially telling that the orange light is mentioned right after that horrific scene in which Frank Bryce listens in on the slimy baby and Wormtail. This is also the book in which Harry loses the protection afforded him by his mother's death and, possibly, the protection from being with relatives. --Dicentra, who prefers outlandish theories to common sense From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Fri Mar 29 21:27:21 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:27:21 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Tom Riddle's/Voldemort's name Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37148 Barbara wrote: >Now, here is the question: if Dumbledore is so eager to dispell the >fear >people have about calling the dark Lord by his name - why is he >still >using "Voldemort" at all? >We know (and Dumbledore does, too) that Voldemort is in truth Tom >Riddle. >So *why* doesn't Dumbledore tell people about it? Well, just my two cents, but its a thought... Tom/Volemort wished to disconnect himself from his former self. His human, prefect, good-boy, never-do-anything-wrong appearance, to become a feared and powerful Dark Wizard that he was on the inside. With the appearance and ruthlessness, you need a name. If you want to leave yourself behind, you leave your name...and you have to admit, "Voldemort" sounds scary enough in itself without seeing the name's owner! But I figured, in essence...Tom Riddle is essentially dead. Liz (who thought *that* was a pretty pointless e-mail) _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From porphyria at mindspring.com Fri Mar 29 21:33:52 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:33:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's oily hair Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37149 Thank you so much Amanda for you kind post. I'm giggling a little because I sent that post on Monday and it got caught in Yahoo's gaping maw; since then I sort of assumed it would never surface and I was secretly glad to see the thread end. As you remarked yourself, it was getting a bit silly. I was having one of those "he is still a literary character, people" moments and I'm glad the point I was trying to make came through my ranty undertone. Amanda wrote: << Porphyria appeared in a blinding flash of light and intoned "Snape strikes me as someone who is *in mourning*" Can I forward your post to the Snapefans list, please, which is currently languishing in a cyclical bout of denigrating the closed-minded book-burner types? >> Oh, please do, I'll be so flattered. << --Amanda, truly impressed to read something new under the sun on Snape, and really wishing she'd thought of that. >> I'd like to say "it's a Goth thing" but I won't bore you with the details. ;-) ~~Porphyria, still gasping for breath from praise from Amandageist 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. From Bugeater93 at aol.com Fri Mar 29 20:04:51 2002 From: Bugeater93 at aol.com (Bugeater93 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:04:51 EST Subject: Lucius kills Voldemort, takes Fudge's position? Message-ID: <15d.b6fa5a0.29d622e3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37150 I can definitely see Lucius getting fed up with Voldemort and offing him. Voldemort is just plain obsessed with killing Harry Potter and Dumbledore, can we say boring? Personally, I'd find Lucius a better villain because he has a hatred for Muggles and Muggle-borns that I believe surpasses Voldemort's. Plus, Lucius would probably be more violent and just start eradicating everyone he hates. If Muggles were Jews, then Lucius would be Hitler and the Death Eaters would be the Nazis. It could really go along with the whole Lucius taking Fudge's position as Minister of Magic...sounds like Supreme Dictator to me! And he'd pardon all the convicted Death Eaters in Azkaban and make a huge army of darkness. More bad thoughts. Lucius would actually have a very good chance at the Minister of Magic position if he DID kill Voldemort and acted all heroic and stuff. He'd gain lots of public support and put a few Death Eaters in Azkaban for show. When he got the position, he'd turn out just like Hitler. He's even got the whole Aryian race thing going with his blond locks. And when he pardons all his Death Eaters in Azkaban, he'll use the prision as a Death Camp and recuit the Dementors by giving them all the Muggles and Muggle-borns they could ever want. First step England, second step...THE WORLD! Muahahahahaha. That's Lucius Malfoy for you. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From m.bockermann at t-online.de Fri Mar 29 21:20:07 2002 From: m.bockermann at t-online.de (m.bockermann at t-online.de) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:20:07 +0100 Subject: Arthur Weasley References: <1017427305.5840.66215.m2@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001401c1d767$ae6766e0$35429fc1@i7p8l9> No: HPFGUIDX 37151 Hi Elkins! Hi Abigail! Hi the rest! I believe you have me convinced on the Arthur Weasley/Imperius curse theory. It would not only explain Arthur Weasley's opinion of Malfoy's return from the Imperius curse, but also his opinion of the Malfoys and their ilk in general. And picking on the three student who suffered under the Unforgivable curses does sound like Crouch/Moody. Now you have caused me to wonder what Arthur Weasley might have done under the Imperius curse. Something that had to do with the Potters? That would have an interesting effect on Ron's and Harry's friendship. Abigail suggested that Arthur Weasley might have been an auror. While I don't have much to proof against it, I am not convinced. If that was the case, wouldn't Ron know about it? And he is not the kind to keep silent about it. And to be honest... while I think the world of Arthur, I don't think he is auror kind of material. Too... nice? He doesn't even get really angry with his kids (see the twins in HP4), so where does he hide the fierceness that I (personally) associate with an auror. On the other hand I would agree that the Department against the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts is a rather new one, created by/for Arthur Weasley. In the time before the fall of LV, protecting Muggles was probably not important for the members of the WW. (For some it still isn't). Especially Malfoy is acting as if the position was a dishonorable one, one that wizards of good standing would not accept (HP2). As if the position was a kind of punishment... for doing something dreadfully wrong under the influence of the Imperius curse? Even though Arthur loves his position, it pays just enough to care for the family and not much more. What is certain Abigail, is that you are right about the relationship between Arthur Weasley and Moody. Judging from the reactions of Arthur and Molly, Moody has a special place in their heart. Maybe not because he was a colleague, but because he gave testimony that Arthur was indeed under the influence of the Imperius curse and could not be faulted for his actions. That would explain their friendship and places Arthur under the curse without making him an auror. What do you think. Elkins, with your last paragraph you really confused me, I'm afraid. I must admit that I haven't found anything festering in their family dynamic. Missing Weasley children? What did I miss? Do you mean that there was another Weasley child that died during the reign of LV? Is that the reason why Crouch senior continually calls Percy by a wrong name? I promise I am going to read chapter 9 of GoF. But if I ask really nice, with sugar and cream, could you explain to me what FEATHERBOAS is and what kind of theory is behind it? Please? In any case, every who celebrates: have a great holiday! And if you don't... have a great time, anyway. Barbara Jebenstreit From uncmark at yahoo.com Mon Mar 25 09:01:23 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:01:23 -0000 Subject: Free Elves Unite Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37152 In chapter 10 of ChofS, Dobby said "Dobby can only be freed if his masters present him with clothes, sir. The family is careful not to pass Dobby even a sock, sir, for then he would be free to leave their house forever." >From this description, freeing and elf can be accidental (It was for Dobby and Lucius Malfoy) or they can be fired as with Crouch and Winky in GofF ch. 9. My question is that as it is known that clothes free a house-elf, Dobby and Winky cannot be the only free elves in the UK, so where are they? Winky mentioned the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures. Are free elves exiled somewhere? Dobby and Winky weren't so where are they? I'd be interested in seeing them in future novels. They'd be great allies against Voldemort and if they got together with Hermione, SPEW would really take off. Uncmark From that1guy_hp at hotmail.com Tue Mar 26 02:31:14 2002 From: that1guy_hp at hotmail.com (Jake Storm) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 02:31:14 +0000 Subject: Dobby might...was: Re: [HPforGrownups] Will Winky go to the Weasleys? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37153 >From: "lucky_kari" >I think it'd be very out-of character. We've seen how devoted Winky >was to the Crouches. Do you think she'd leave caring for Crouch Jr. >even after that... ummmm... fiasco? Well, she was given the sack by Crouch Sr., so my guess is that she'd be hard pressed to go back, devotion or no devotion. Dobby, on the other hand, is a good candidate to become the house elf to our favorite family of redheads. J _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From Zarleycat at aol.com Fri Mar 29 21:58:22 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:58:22 -0000 Subject: James set up for a Fall? (Was Wormtail's fault - Life-debt ) In-Reply-To: <008e01c1d5fd$8c410c80$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37154 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Alina" wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: kiricat2001 > To: HPforGrownups at y... > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 8:50 PM > Subject: [HPforGrownups] James set up for a Fall? (Was Wormtail's fault - Life-debt ) However, I don't recall anyone, including Dumbledore, > saying anything negative about James, with the exception of the > Dursleys and Snape. And, of course, these are the people Harry > despises most, with the possible exception of Draco, so any > disparaging remarks they may make about James will be immediately > discounted by Harry. > But people have said negative things about James, you just have to >read between the lines. Remember what Remus said in book 3? That the >Marauders would've thought it great fun to tempt Harry into sneaking >off the school grounds when it was safer for him not to. And James >was a Marauder. People compared Sirius and James to Fred and George >and you have to admit that as fun as Fred and George are they're >likely to go to far in their fun, disregarding the feelings of >people like their mother and how their actions affect those who care >about them. Yes, but neither of these examples are particularly shocking to Harry. He's seen Fred and George in action, and, if anything, would be inclined to be on their side. As far as the Marauders wanting to entice Harry out of the castle, as a kid looking at the actions of James as a kid, again, I don't think this qualifies. What I mean is that I wonder if Harry won't find out something about James that is not particularly savory. Maybe it won't be something horrible - in fact, I doubt it would be. I'd be surprised if we were told that James was accused of something like date rape. But, it wouldn't surprise me if JKR reveals an action of James that was morally ambiguous, especially if Harry finds out about it after he himself is faced with a similar decision, and makes the "correct" choice. Harry would then have to reconcile in his own mind the correctness of his own actions with how his father behaved. It would be a revealing look into Harry's character - how do you deal with discovering that your father, someone whose image you've built up in you own mind as a wonderful, honorable person,) may not have always acted that way? And, Harry would not have the option of confronting James. Imagine if a situation like this arises, and Snape is the one to give Harry incontrovertible evidence of James' shortcomings. Marianne, always looking for dramatic tension From scaryfairymary at hotmail.com Fri Mar 29 22:14:01 2002 From: scaryfairymary at hotmail.com (scaryfairymary) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:14:01 -0000 Subject: If you were Headmaster of Hogwarts... In-Reply-To: <74AB478F.6649CF04.B13B89B9@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37155 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., kellybroughton at n... wrote: > > > Just had a thought (that I should have put in my previous post!) Why focus exclusively on Harry? I know that he is pretty much the target that VM will be going for, but since I seriously doubt that Harry will be fighting VM 100% on his own, why not teach this desired curriculum to ALL the students? Everyone at Hogwarts needs to know how to survive this war, not just Harry. > > -kel > On the surface this may seem like the best option. However, I think it would be irresponsible to teach this kind of magic to ALL of the Hogwarts students. Even if it was limited to the older years [say above 4th year] there is no saying exactly *who* is recieving this information. Unfortunately not all of the students are as mature or emotionally responsible as Harry and his friends [eg. most of the Slytherin students]. Could you imagine just how dangerous it would be for Draco and co. to have such magic? I'm also quite sure that Draco is not the only child of a Death Eater. -Mary- From Zarleycat at aol.com Fri Mar 29 22:14:18 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:14:18 -0000 Subject: What to do with Pettigrew, once captured? In-Reply-To: <014101c1d6f0$48d68d00$e6c71bce@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37156 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" wrote: > I remember the scene well where Peter Pettigrew, exposed, cowered and > whimpered for mercy...and the utter lack of respect I had for him. I > couldn't imagine Severus Snape, in his pre-spy days when he _was_ a real > proud Death Eater, doing anything of the sort, or Lucius Malfoy, or > _especially_ Lord Voldemort. There is a certain grandeur in proud, > unrepentant evil, a la Satan in Milton's _Paradise Lost,_ but a snivelling > coward, whimpering for mercy to the very people he had most bitterly > wronged? Uh-_uh Really - If you're going to be evil, at least have the decency to carry it off with a bit of style! > > However, this still leaves us with the question of what to _do_ with little > Peter. Azkaban? It obviously can't hold an Animagus, although a _known_ > Animagus may be a different story---we don't know how many wizards and > witches go there, or how long it's been there, and they may have not set it > up to handle Animagi. Dementor smooch? I'd sentence him to twelve years in Azkaban for starters. Then he and Sirius could compare notes on what it was like, and perhaps provide some enterprising wizard psychiatrist two interesting case studies. I'm sure the Ministry could fix up some sort of cell that would hold a known Animagus. Of course, there's the small matter of Cedric's death. In the wizard world that surely deserves the Kiss. Marianne From editor at texas.net Fri Mar 29 22:23:18 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:23:18 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Free Elves Unite References: Message-ID: <001c01c1d770$55361040$9b7763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 37157 Uncmark said > In chapter 10 of ChofS, Dobby said "Dobby can only be freed if his > masters present him with clothes, sir. The family is careful not to > pass Dobby even a sock, sir, for then he would be free to leave their > house forever." > > >From this description, freeing and elf can be accidental (It was for > Dobby and Lucius Malfoy) or they can be fired as with Crouch and > Winky in GofF ch. 9. My question is that as it is known that clothes > free a house-elf, Dobby and Winky cannot be the only free elves in > the UK, so where are they? In new positions. House-elves, from the sample we've seen, do NOT like to be free and unattached. I presume they are taken care of by the House-Elf Relocation Office, which is mentioned in "About the Author" on page vi of "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them." It's just a guess, but I'd imagine that Office matches up freed elves with appropriate locations to be bound to. --Amanda From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri Mar 29 22:36:37 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:36:37 -0000 Subject: Free Elves Unite In-Reply-To: <001c01c1d770$55361040$9b7763d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37158 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda" wrote: > In new positions. House-elves, from the sample we've seen, do NOT like to be > free and unattached. I presume they are taken care of by the House- Elf > Relocation Office, which is mentioned in "About the Author" on page vi of > "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them." It's just a guess, but I'd > imagine that Office matches up freed elves with appropriate locations to be > bound to. Hmm. That raises another question for me: if house-elves don't get paid, then how come only rich people have them? Are they purchased? If so, then where, and from whom? People who own house- elves don't seem to show much interest in selling them -- if they want to get rid of an elf, they just sack him or her. So if you win a bunch of galleons in the lottery and decide to get an elf for your home, where would you pick one up? From scaryfairymary at hotmail.com Fri Mar 29 22:58:27 2002 From: scaryfairymary at hotmail.com (scaryfairymary) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:58:27 -0000 Subject: Religious Parallels Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37159 While intently following the "Harry as Saviour" posts I began to mull over another biblical parallel that came to mind. I suppose it's a blend of the HaS and the "House elves" discussions. Just as Moses freed the slaves fom Egypt, is Hermione going to free Dobby and co? Maybe not in such a dramatic fashion, but extremely important nonetheless. Maybe this is just the rambling of an overly exhausted mind, but I'd like to hear any feedback, or any other ideas of religious/biblical parallel. -Mary (who feels that maybe she has an over active imagination) From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Fri Mar 29 23:02:20 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:02:20 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Minister of Magic? Popes St. Cornelius and St. Lucius (I)... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37160 "bugeater93" wrote: >To fill you in on the beginning of the topic...we were speculating >about Cornelius Fudge dying or perhaps fleeing in Book 5 and what >would happen if Lucius Malfoy were to somehow use his influence and >con his way into replacing Fudge as Minister of Magic... <> Well, personally, I think that if Cornelius Fudge could be gotten rid of it would be a *cough* blessing. I despise Fudge. OTOH, I think I would rather have Incredulous Fudge (my brother and I noticed that he has a tendency to "fudge" everything up) in charge than a Death Eater. Imagine what havoc that would raise! >Personally, I think Arthur Weasley would become Minister of Magic, >because I've heard him referred to as a King Arthur type figure and >everyone else seems to think he will, so why not? I can see some >really great things happening with the plots in future books if this >stuff is true. And the Liz had an evil idea... Not really. I would love to see Arthur Weasley become the Minister of Magic. This is the man who collects plugs, writes himself a loophole for his flying Ford Anglia, and tackles Lucius Malfoy...how can you not love him? :D We really need an acronym for people who would like to see Fudge booted and Arthur Weasley put in. Mayhap I will think of something in church tonight. Suggestions? Liz (who loves Weasleys) _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From elfundeb at aol.com Tue Mar 26 04:51:42 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 23:51:42 EST Subject: SYCHOPHANTS/Privet Drive Protection Message-ID: <16c.af6d98d.29d1585e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37161 DG wrote: Consider this: the direct result of Harry's choice to spare Wormtail was the death of the Ripple house caretaker, Bertha Jorkins, Crouch Sr, and Cedric Diggory - at least, so far. Is there any doubt that there will be more deaths? Killing Wormtail in the shack would not have been murder. It would have been self-defense and a healthy dose of justice. True, but Harry was a 13-year-old wizard under stress without an appetite for murder. It would have been astonishing for him to recognize the justice of killing Pettigrew under the circumstances, and it would not have been in Harry's character to kill him for revenge. Besides, Sirius and Lupin agreed to support Harry's decision, giving him "permission" to let him go. Cindy regarding the function of the Put-Outer on the 12 street lamps : If you think about it, there really isn't much of a compelling reason for Dumbledore to extinguish the lights in the first place, IMO.? The street is deserted, and it is the middle of the night.? When Dumbledore extinguishes the lights, he doesn't yet know that Hagrid will show up in a fashion (on a flying motorcycle) that might generate curiosity among the muggles.? Also, if Dumbledore wishes for darkness, he really doesn't have to extinguish 12 street lamps, does he?? Two or four, perhaps, but extinguishing 12 lamps seems like far more than necessary to darken the Dursleys' home.? Had a neighbor woken up in the middle of the night and looked outside his bedroom window, he might have seen two wizards in full regalia and a half-giant with a baby (who will soon be known to all the neighbors to have taken up residence at the Dursleys'). I think that's reason enough to extinguish the lamps. Extinguishing 12 lights makes it look like there's a momentary problem with the street lights on Privet Drive rather than a mysterious blackness around the Dursley home. A surveillance device that lets the good wizards know everything that is happening on Privet Drive.? This works a lot better, I think.? We certainly know that MoM instantly knows about all magic that happens on Privet Drive, based on their response to Dobby's magic and Aunt Marge (and we know they don't react instantly to magic other underage wizards perform).? We know that Hagrid or Dumbledore knows that Harry isn't receiving his letters, that he is moved from the cupboard to the bedroom, and that the Dursleys flee.? Maybe each of the 12 street lamp is a separate surveillance device, perhaps sending different types of information (magic usage, communication monitoring, visual image) to different recipients (one for MoM, one for Dumbledore, one for Mrs. Figg, etc.) Hmm . . . I think the surveillance idea is interesting but I can't reconcile it with the fact that Dobby's magic caused a Ministry employee to send the most ill-timed letter to Harry at the Dursleys, while the Muggle Masons were still in attendance. Surely if they had all this surveillance they would have noticed the Masons' presence? And if the Improper Use of Magic Office needed a special surveillance device to notice the magic at Privet Drive, that would the restriction on magic outside of school is basically completely unenforceable except against select targets in select places. So I doubt that the street lamps were necessary to detect magic at Privet Drive. And if they weren't necessary to detect magic, I'm not convinced why they were necessary to detect visual images, etc. I'm afraid the theory sounds to me to be something out of a Muggle spy movie. Maybe the answer is that Harry is safe when he is in the presence of his relations, which several people have already proposed as part of Harry's protection.? I tend to think that the entirety of Harry's protection resides in the Dursleys themselves, and that the letter from Dumbledore told them in no uncertain terms, and on pain of consequences that the Dursleys would have thought horrific, that they were not to leave Harry under any circumstances except with Mrs. Figg (and I bet her house is Unplottable). I can't imagine any other reason on earth the Dursleys would have been willing to take an eleven-year-old Harry to Dudley's party rather than just leave him at home. But this means I haven't found any purpose for those twelve balls of fire Dumbledore sends with the Put-Outer, unless he was using the Put-Outer to cast the protective spell. After all, he never takes out a wand. And he can't possibly have left Harry there without the protection in place. Is it possible that Dumbledore's wand was concealed in the Put-Outer, or that the wand was transfigured into a cigarette lighter, just in case something went wrong? Had Dudley gone to Smeltings and Harry gone to a different muggle school, that protection might not have existed.? It might be a good thing that the wizarding world spirited Harry away to Hogwarts when they did. The protection would indeed have been gone, and no doubt Dumbledore & Co. knew it, and would have taken any means necessary to get Harry to Hogwarts. Come to think of it, though, Harry had a few perilous moments at King's Cross station after Vernon left him there, till the Weasleys turned up. By forgetting to tell Harry how to cross the barrier at King's Cross (I'm assuming it was Hagrid's job), Hagrid could have caused Harry's downfall had the baddies been alert. Lucius could have snatched him up, if he was there seeing Draco off. Debbie, not quite ready to label Hagrid a coward, being content with "reckless" and "incompetent" [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Fri Mar 29 23:32:55 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:32:55 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Arthur Weasley, With Imperius Curse (WAS: What's In A Name?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37162 Elkins wrote: >Debbie wrote, about the Weasleys: > > There certainly doesn't appear to be anything "weaselly" about > > them. Quite the contrary. I think the Weasleys are among the most > > straightforward characters in HP, and quite comfortable in their > > own commoner shoes. (Now, is there an English town called > > "Weasley"?) > > > Debbie, waiting for someone to prove her wrong by posting the > > sinister Weasley backstory (no, I don't think Molly's sandwich > > crimes will do) > >Weasley backstory? Did somebody request a Weasley backstory? Well, as for the name, I stand by a theory that one of the Weasley's ancestors was an animagus who turned into...a weasel. (Took me about ten tries consisting of "weasley", "weasle", and "weasy" to get that one right!) > >You don't want your Weasleys straightforward, eh? You want someone >to suggest something that will make you lie awake nights, worrying >about them? You want something a bit more dire than Molly's culinary >amnesia to make you feel paranoid and unsettled about the dear old >Weasley clan? You asked for an improbable backstory speculation? Oh I already worry about them. Like which one's gonna die. :( >but >would you care for a bite of Arthur Weasley With Imperius Curse? *pops the popcorn and sits on the inflatable couch* <> >Why would Arthur have told Ron about Lucius Malfoy's acquittal, >when he's never even explained to the kid 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, Seems to me that the Weasleys and Malfoys fighting goes back a few generations or more -- but true. >'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, right? He's both a sadist and a >show-off; and he's 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 >"appreciative" of Ron's answer? I think if everything we were speculating upon here, that Arthur Weasley was Imperio'd for an indeterminate amount of time, and Crouch knew it, that it would qualify as a gloat. >I also see a certain symmetry emerging in this chapter if we accept >as our 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 was 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. Crouch is just like >that. This is the chapter that got the wheels in my head turning. It wasn't until the second time that I read that chapter that I realised that three of the people in class could have the connection to the Unforgivables. Harry has the obvious one of Avada Kedavra, Neville's connection to the Cruciatus curse through his parents (which, unless I'm mistaken, we don't learn about until after the penseive, and it broke my heart to read Neville's reaction to the spider the second time around :( ), and Ron's connection to the Imperius curse, which we are speculating upon here. >He's a sadist, and he has some...well, let's just say some >parental issues. Haha, not enough football as a young child. :D J/K. How much do you think that Crouch Sr. actually blames himself for his son's choices? At all? >And finally, in defense of my Imperio'd Arthur Weasley theory, I >would point out that Ron seems to find fighting off the Imperius >Curse unusually difficult. 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 a weak-willed person at all, really. Imperius seems to be an insanely hard curse to overthrow, whether you have a weak-will or not. Its probably like rolling your tongue--some people can, some people can't. (Note: rolling your tongue IS a hereditary trait, I realise that and that's my point.) >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. I don't think being Imperio'd is something people necessarily want to discuss openly. Kind of like some vets don't want to speak about the Vietnam War, its just something that they'd rather forget. >No, if Arthur Weasley ever had a little Imperius problem, then that's >been kept a secret from the children -- or at least from the younger >ones. Bill and Charlie might know about it, but Ron, Ginny and the >Twins certainly don't. Percy... > >Well, Percy might, or he might not. Hard to say, really. Percy is such a character. He's the kind of person that makes me think of reading "Tale of Two Cities" at the age of five (maybe he can explain it to me, because *I* sure don't get it). He's very smart, and was probably mature for his age, being only five during the first defeat of Voldemort. His parents might have told him, or they might not've. >At any rate, if it's true, then it's a rather large secret, don't you >think? Rather a nasty secret. Rather an ugly secret. A Deep Dark >secret. A Skeleton In the Weasley Family Closet sort of secret. > >So I'm hoping that it's true. Because not only do I think that the >it would be interesting for the Weasleys to have one of those; I also >think that the Weasleys *act* as if they have one of those. There's >something festering away somewhere in that family dynamic, and I >don't think that it's just a matter of financial stress. I think >that there's something swept under the carpet somewhere in that >household. Something secret, and sad. > >Further speculations about missing Weasley children, Arthur's >particular demeanor when telling the children about the significance >of the Dark Mark at the end of Chapter 9 of GoF, Bill's contributions >to that particular conversation, literary parallels between Percy >Weasley and Barty Crouch, and how any of that might intersect with >the series' thematic emphasis on damaged families, secrets, the >effects of the past upon the present, and father-son relationships, I >will leave to the cruel and ruthlessly bloody minds of my fellow >FEATHERBOAS. Well, as a very wise person once said..."If you're going to have skeletons in the closet, you may as well teach them to dance." :) I'll do you one better. Nevermind, I just crushed my own theory...do you have any idea how terribly frustrating that is? >_< Maybe one day someone will open that closet door, and the skeleton will come tumbling out--and become a canon. And just a question, what's a FEATHERBOA? >-- Elkins, who really does adore Arthur Weasley. Liz, who agrees. Who doesn't?! _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From editor at texas.net Fri Mar 29 23:43:24 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:43:24 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Free Elves Unite References: Message-ID: <005e01c1d77b$85cdf0a0$9b7763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 37163 Marinafrants said > Hmm. That raises another question for me: if house-elves don't get > paid, then how come only rich people have them? Are they > purchased? If so, then where, and from whom? People who own house- > elves don't seem to show much interest in selling them -- if they > want to get rid of an elf, they just sack him or her. So if you win > a bunch of galleons in the lottery and decide to get an elf for your > home, where would you pick one up? Well, according to my theory, rich people and old families "own" house-elves because rich people and old families own the manors and castles and such. If you're rich, I imagine you can buy a manor or castle with an elf attached. I think there is some requirement for a location to be appropriate for a house-elf, and finding appropriate locations for the elves is what the Relocation Office does. It's not Re-Employment Office; it's Re-*Location.* It's the Burrow, not the Weasleys, that would keep a house-elf from being there. I think that the terminology of "owning" an elf is a verbal shorthand, not a literal term. Rich people acquire elves by acquiring the large old manors and castles and such that the house-elves are bound to. By owning their location, you enter into a bond with the elf. It isn't you in particular, it's that you own their place. I think Winky may be as odd as Dobby; she seems genuinely devoted to the people as people in their own right, which is why she can't process that she's not bound to them anymore. I think perhaps house-elves as a rule are less extreme in their attachment to the people, and tend to consider them more as their charges, to be served in their role as owners of the house-elf's place. --Amanda From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Tue Mar 26 05:36:46 2002 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 00:36:46 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's oily hair Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37164 In a message dated 3/26/2002 12:03:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, editor at texas.net writes: > Kendra said > > > Yes, I have known people with excessivly oily hair also, but wouldn't it > > look much nicer, and much less "dirty" if Snape kept it shorter? Mayhap > > long hair is in vogue at Hogwarts, at least in Snape's mind, but, if my > > hair always looked like I coated it in oil, I would tend to keep it > short! --Amandageist wrote: > > Where did you get the impression that Snape gives a tinker's damn about > what > anyone thinks? Others' opinions of his appearance is probably just below > his > concern for Neville's feelings or his fear of offending Lupin. This thread > is ranging far into the ridiculous. > > Alright. If you think that's ridiculous, you'll think this is completely insane. My friend Grace and I were reading with this and came up with an idiotic theory with no evidence behind it save for what two silly women with a free evening came up with. Hower, it is a theory, even if it would be scary if it were true. Ok, our theory is that Snape doesn't wash his hair because that's where his pleasure sensor is and he thinks that if he washes it too much he'll lose his vindictive, bad-ass attitude. I hope I won't get into trouble for being so pointless. Chances are I'm drunk right now and will regret it in the morning. Cheers! ~Cassie and Grace-Two girls who plan on washing Snape's hair until he purrs~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mongobongo38 at yahoo.com Fri Mar 29 22:30:51 2002 From: mongobongo38 at yahoo.com (mongobongo38) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:30:51 -0000 Subject: Voldemort as Christ figure; Ira, not Cole In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37165 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "coriolan_cmc2001" wrote: > > Symbols - as opposed to allegories - are (as Freud said) open to > hyperinterpretation: that is, they can be (indeed, must be) > interpreted on multiple levels to be fully understood. Interpreting > JKR's Phoenix in an alchemical manner, or establishing a literary > link to Nesbit does not invalidate the Christian interpretation. As, of course, a Christian interpretation does not invalidate an alchemical one. And of course, the first book was entitled Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, not Harry Potter and the Holy Trinity. Mongo From alexpie at aol.com Sat Mar 30 00:57:52 2002 From: alexpie at aol.com (alexpie at aol.com) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:57:52 EST Subject: Eric Lindros and Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37166 My passion, other than HP, is hockey. I was struck by some parallels during an ESPN biography of Lindros. Other hockey fans (if any), please weigh in. Recognized as unique at a very early age, and treated differently. Expected to be the savior of whatever team he joined (parallel with houses and the Sorting Hat, that is, Harry's wanting to go to Gryffindor, not Slytherin, and Lindros's refusing to join any but the team of his choice). That's all background, however. The one that struck me is something that has been discussed, sporadically, on the list for some time. Is someone who is exceptional an exception to the rules? There was much talk in the documentary about Lindro's's not having to do certain things, and being excused for breaking rules that would have gotten other players suspended (and the resentment among other players that that engendered), that reminded me of Snape's comment about Harry being a nasty little boy who got away with breaking rules (sorry, paraphrasing). Probably this is just yet another instance of my finding HP parallels in way too much in my life. (Does anyone else say "Lumos" when they turn on the lights?) Hoping that this is enough about the book not to be reprimanded by the charming Moderator Elves-- Ba, of Ravenclaw From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Mar 30 01:55:32 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 01:55:32 -0000 Subject: Free Elves Unite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37167 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda" wrote: > > In new positions. House-elves, from the sample we've seen, do NOT like to be free and unattached. I presume they are taken care of by the House-Elf Relocation Office, which is mentioned in "About the Author" on page vi of "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them." It's just a guess, but I'd imagine that Office matches up freed elves with appropriate > locations to be bound to. > Marina: > Hmm. That raises another question for me: if house-elves >don't get paid, then how come only rich people have them? In the real world, domestic slaves, as opposed to slaves employed in productive work like mining and agriculture, have always been a luxury item...more expensive than hiring paid labor, which is generally available at *less* than a living wage. (You want fries with that?) Slaves have to be fed, housed and supervised. Skilled slaves need to be trained. House Elf offspring must be supported also. I wonder how quickly Elves multiply and what is done if there are more offspring than the owner family can support. House Elves could be the magical equivalent of a white elephant. Hmm...perhaps Malfoy could ruin the Weasleys by giving them a pair of breeding Elves. Marina: Are they purchased? If so, then where, and from whom? People who own house- > elves don't seem to show much interest in selling them -- if they want to get rid of an elf, they just sack him or her. So if you win a bunch of galleons in the lottery and decide to get an elf for your home, where would you pick one up?< >From what Dobby says, unattached Elves go looking for new positions. Perhaps there is a list at the House Elf relocation office, or perhaps there are help wanted ads for Elves in the Prophet (though it's my theory that Elves can't read.) If they were being sold openly, there'd be markets in Hogsmeade and Diagon Alley, so it's my guess they aren't. Perhaps it's disgraceful to sell an Elf, a bit like pawning the family silver. What is topsy turvy about the Potterverse is that the Elves regard freedom as a social disgrace. That, I think, is unknown in human society. Slaves are always lowest on the social totem pole. That argues that Elf psychology is significantly different from that of human beings. Perhaps they imprint on their masters like birds, or have evolved or been magicked so that they bond to wizards the way dogs do to their owners. I've only done a little research on slavery for this post, so if somebody knows more I'd like to hear from them. Pippin From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sat Mar 30 02:30:22 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:30:22 -0000 Subject: Free Elves Unite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37168 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > Marina: > Are they purchased? If so, then where, and from whom? > People who own house- > > elves don't seem to show much interest in selling them -- if > they want to get rid of an elf, they just sack him or her. So if you > win a bunch of galleons in the lottery and decide to get an elf for > your home, where would you pick one up?< > > From what Dobby says, unattached Elves go looking for new > positions. Perhaps there is a list at the House Elf relocation > office, or perhaps there are help wanted ads for Elves in the > Prophet (though it's my theory that Elves can't read.) But then where does the money go? Who do you make the check out to when you buy an unattached elf? Are they considered property of the wizarding government? Is there a house-elf tax? Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From southernscotland at yahoo.com Sat Mar 30 01:15:53 2002 From: southernscotland at yahoo.com (southernscotland) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 01:15:53 -0000 Subject: Werewolf of London? Paris? Where? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37169 This just struck me on the re-reading of the books: Where was Remus during the time that Harry was with the Dursleys? Why did he never attempt to contact him, or if he did, why did Dumbledore not allow him to do so? Also, in Book 3, why didn't he tell Harry right up front who he was? Like, "I was in a very tight group of friends at Hogwarts, which included your father. Unfortunately, I'm the only one still around here. I'm so sorry he's dead, come here and I'll tell you all about him and your mom." And should Harry be mad about this omission? In the book, it seems that Remus is shown to be kind, gentle, quiet, and good-hearted, especially in contrast with the more bombastic Sirius. But it seems to me that, in keeping with his character, he would have been more concerned about Harry than he seems to be, and would have wanted a relationship with him. After all, Sirius, while indeed the godfather, is always beating himself up about not being around for Harry. As far as I know, Remus could have indeed been there for the boy (during the right times of the month, that is). I know he's a werewolf and all, but he wouldn't have had to tell Harry that if he hadn't wanted to. Harry would have been just as happy to have had an "uncle" who didn't hate him. Remus consoles Sirius that Sirius couldn't have done anything different for Harry, since he was in prison, but never once brings up the fact that he, Remus, could have looked after the boy himself, at least somewhat. And why didn't Sirius think of this, and take Remus to task about it? Wouldn't Sirius have been a bit disappointed in the (non)actions of his friend? If Dumbledore hadn't wanted Remus to visit Harry, he could have at least written him letters, or something. He could have even left out the "you're a wizard" part. And if Dumbledore purposely kept them apart, even after Harry's first and second years at Hogwarts, why? This seems cruel to me. Maybe Remus was so traumatized by the whole murder thing that he wanted to forget them all. It seems a shame, however, that Harry couldn't have gotten to know him, at least a little, while Harry was still a child. Both of them would have benefited from the relationship. And why doesn't Remus show any guilt over this? Maybe the Marauders weren't quite as "thick-as-thieves" as we thought? Or is there another reason? Confused about the non-lurking Lupin, lilahp From Ahketsi at aol.com Sat Mar 30 02:29:19 2002 From: Ahketsi at aol.com (Ahketsi at aol.com) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:29:19 EST Subject: S.P.E.W. (responding to Liz's comments Message-ID: <64.1cef5e90.29d67cff@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37170 Those are all excellent comments, Liz. I am referring to her analysis of Harry's, Ron's, and Hermione's reactions to Lupin being a werewolf and also her comments regarding how the three characters feel about S.P.E.W. (Got caught the first time for not specifying! Sorry Dicey!) The topic that intrigues me the most is Hermione and S.P.E.W. Hmm, I know it's funny that that Hermione's acronym for her elves' rights campaign spells the word "spew", but it really just seems to me that Hermione is intelligent enough to realize her acronym takes credibility away from her cause. What do you think? As for the actual debate of Elf rights, I don't know what to think. It seems like a lost cause since the elves' refuse to defend themselves, but if they are truly brainwashed, as Hermione believes, then they are deserving of the same status as witches and wizards, as members of the magical community. It seems to me that the argument "it's in their nature" to care for wizards is simply an excuse to leave things the way they are. Hermione is certainly passionate about it, but maybe overly passionate. In any case, Hermione certainly should not continue fighting for the rights of elves in the upcoming years since there will obviously be more important battles to fight (Voldemort...) But Hermione is a remarkable character, I absolutely admire the maturity she has shown throughout the series. she always does what she thinks is right, no matter what the consequences. Embarrassment always takes last priority if it's right, then she does it. Back to the debate, again I am strongly inclined to believe that the elves' are being oppressed. I am almost completely convinced by Dobby's desire to be free. He was convinced more easily than the others since his masters were such terrible people. House elves just seem to enjoy simple living, so when they're in good company, with masters who treat them nicely, they think they are exactly where they want to be. But then what about Winky? Well, it seems like she was treated nicely, her whole family was, and she felt obligated to look after her masters. Not to mention it's the way her family has been doing things for generations. I think this has just been going on for so long that they can't break out of it. But I do believe that there are house elves out there, besides Dobby, who feel trapped by their obligations, deprived of greater things. Anyway, that's all I have to say. I've never posted before. I don't know if it is customary here for people to introduce themselves, but I'm Jacey and I'm just here to join in on the discussions. So greetings to you all! -Jacey [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lterrellgiii at icqmail.com Sat Mar 30 04:06:12 2002 From: lterrellgiii at icqmail.com (L. Terrell Gould, III) Date: 29 Mar 2002 20:06:12 -0800 Subject: Poor old Draco, et al. was Re: Harry the Saviour? (was Re: A quote, and RE: Potter Message-ID: <20020330040612.27593.cpmta@c012.snv.cp.net> No: HPFGUIDX 37171 An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sat Mar 30 05:50:40 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:50:40 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] S.P.E.W. (responding to Liz's comments In-Reply-To: <64.1cef5e90.29d67cff@aol.com> References: <64.1cef5e90.29d67cff@aol.com> Message-ID: <5714622145.20020329215040@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37172 Friday, March 29, 2002, 6:29:19 PM, Ahketsi at aol.com wrote: Aac> As for the actual debate of Elf rights, I don't know what to think. It seems Aac> like a lost cause since the elves' refuse to defend themselves, but if they Aac> are truly brainwashed, as Hermione believes, then they are deserving of the Aac> same status as witches and wizards, as members of the magical community. The question I have is, are the House Elves really so universally in favor of their own enslavement, or is it only the impression one receives when most of the HE's one encounters work for Dumbledore? Maybe the House Elves of Death Eaters (like Dobby once was) would be warmer towards Hermione's cause. In any case, Hermione better be ready for hefty opposition from the very people she seeks to help. After all, the Suffragettes met with almost as much ridicule from women as from men. -- Dave From saintbacchus at yahoo.com Sat Mar 30 07:14:26 2002 From: saintbacchus at yahoo.com (saintbacchus) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 07:14:26 -0000 Subject: The Nimbus, Neville's memory, Dursley protection Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37173 Jenett writes: << I'd prefer to assume that there *is* an ethical and aboveboard reason behind the gift, rather than assuming that any large gift has to short someone else or be unethical. I've simply been trying to point out ways or reasons that might be true. >> I don't think we're going to get anywhere on the subject of school property; clearly, we've had totally different experiences that have led to totally different opinions on what is or is not fair use of school funds. So, instead of arguing that point further, I'm going to reiterate for the third time my original conclusion: If McGonagall used her own money, good. If McGonagall used school money, bad. I never said there was no possible way the gift could be ethical. Uncmark writes: << I believe Neville's absentmindedness might be caused by a strong memory charm placed to help him deal with the trauma of seeing his parents tortured (or possibly himself) Neville was probably between ages 1-3 and such spells probably affected a young wizard. >> I'm a fan of the theory that Neville's memory charm (uh, assuming there is one, of course) was placed on him by someone who didn't want him to spill some beans. I like it because it's sinister and it implies that the someone was either a DE with a conscience or a Longbottom - someone who would want Neville quiet but not dead, in other words. Debbie writes: << I tend to think that the entirety of Harry's protection resides in the Dursleys themselves, and that the letter from Dumbledore told them in no uncertain terms, and on pain of consequences that the Dursleys would have thought horrific, that they were not to leave Harry under any circumstances except with Mrs. Figg (and I bet her house is Unplottable). I can't imagine any other reason on earth the Dursleys would have been willing to take an eleven-year-old Harry to Dudley's party rather than just leave him at home. >> Maybe I'm just squishy and sentimental, but I tend to think that the letter told them that Harry would die if they left him. For all their neglect, I don't think the Dursleys want to see Harry dead, and certainly not by their own actions (yeah, they're still human, and nobody wants the blood of a child on their hands). Besides, threats don't seem like Dumbledore's style, especially with people he thinks are benign. Which is a good enough explanation for the party, but it's also possible that they think the house *will* get blown up. Petunia knows a little bit about magic, and you know what they say about a little knowledge. She's awfully skittish.... Maybe she has reason to be? --Anna From catlady at wicca.net Sat Mar 30 08:10:53 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:10:53 -0000 Subject: Still Godric's Hollow House Elves / Arthur an Auror? / Missing Weasleys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37174 Amanda wrote: > The fact seems to be that house-elves are unlikely to be attached > to such a house, whether it is Muggle or magical down to the > wainscoting; they live in old manors and castles, yada, yada. Okay. > BUT, you didn't answer why house-elves couldn't live in Muggle old > manors, castles, etc. They would not necessarily be perceived as > what they are; their effects would be considered luck or happy > coincidence, etc., but they could be there. In JKR's world, their > attachment to such Muggle places could well have given rise to some > of our fairy tales. Okay, I don't know at all if House Elves can or cannot live and work in Muggle old castles and so on, if the Muggles don't notice magical beings hanging around them and magical things happening. If the Muggles did notice magic going on, the wizarding folk would want to take the magic away and Memory Charm the Muggles... I thought *that* was what the Office of House Elf Relocation did, steal away any House Elves who might have come into the possession of Muggles, altho' that assumes that the House Elves don't effectively resist being stolen. How did the House Elves originally become attached to those old castles? I think that humans deliberately lured them there with bowls of cream or other baited traps, or by House Elf Trapping spells. In that case, since the time that wizards hid themselves from Muggles, no House Elf would have become attached to a House that was occupied by Muggles at the time of attachment. IIRC our fairy tales have Brownies (Dobbies, etc) voluntarily helping (in exchange for bowls of cream, tidiness, and polite treatment) homemakers, shoemakers, etc, who live in cottages (and maybe even tall, narrow, townhouses, for the shoemakers and tailors) rather than palaces. I have great difficulty visualizing a wizarding world in which House Elves are unwilling to live in charming cottages, altho' I suppose they MIGHT scorn the Burrow, which is described as looking like it had originally been a stone pig sty, with additions built all over it at random that look like they are held up only by magic (i.e. not tidy). Suzanne wrote: > Are you saying that wizards cannot live in a house that was built > by Muggles, that house built by Muggles cannot be magical? No. I think that wizards can live in a house built by Muggles. But the house wouldn't have any House Elves yet at the time that it moved from Muggledom to wizarddom, for reasons given in my reply to Amanda right up there. If House Elves are attached to the house rather than to the family, it would be a *rare* event for any house, despite being owned and occupied by wizards, to first acquire House Elves. > Why wouldn't James and Lily want to raise their baby in a nice, > warm house? Sure they would, but they would choose a charming cottage (like in all those Thomas Kinkade paintings) that was kept warm and snug by magic. For the same reason that Dumbledore wore a magnificent purple outfit with high heeled boots to leave Harry on the Dursley doorstep and some wizards camping at the QWC used tents that looked like miniature castles: "we can't resist showing off" said Arthur. The wizard folk like to look like wizard folk. If House Elves are attached to the family rather than to the place, James and Lily could have brought a Potter family House Elf to their adorable cottage. 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 (snip) > My guess is that Arthur worked under Moody, possibly with Frank > Longbottom and perhaps Amos Diggory too (after all, if Arthur bails > Moody out due to old loyalties, it might be Diggory's motive as > well.) Remember the scene when Amos and Arthur question Winky who has been found holding the wand that cast the Dark Mark? Amos calls her "Elf!" and threatens her, and Arthur tells him not to be so hard on the poor thing and speaks to her kindly. Any number of people have understood that scene to be yet another example of the two men's personalities: Amos is a tough old sod and Arthur is as soft as a marshmallow... I mean, and Arthur is a really nice guy. I always have to be different, right? I understood that scene to be the familiar old technique for questioning a suspect, called "Good Cop, Bad Cop". When the questioner playing the role of Bad Cop is rough and threatening and gets the questionee really scared, the other questioner comes in to play the role of Good Cop, sounding kind and gentle and sympathetic, and the questionee is so grateful for this assistance that heesh trusts Good Cop and tells himer everything. I know married couples who use that technique on contractors: "Oh, I think that countertop would be fine, but I'm not sure what my wife will think" and the contractors think: "Oh, that poor guy, married to that virago" and fix the damn countertop. To me, Amos and Arthur were falling into the roles automatically, as if from old habit, and I therefore guessed that they had worked as a team in some sort of investigation and law enforcement job, previously in their careers. Barbara Jebenstreit wrote: > Missing Weasley children? What did I miss? Do you mean that there > was another Weasley child that died during the reign of LV? Yes, that is some people's theory for why there is such a big gap between Charlie and Percy, that there was another child (or two) who died or was stolen. Some people want there to have been one more son so that Ron will be a seventh son. 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. It could be that Arthur's parents had a lot of kids (nice for those who want Ron to be the seventh son of a seventh son -- I imagine that there was at least one year during Tom Riddle's school days in which there was a Gryffindor Weasley in EACH form, so why didn't we see any of them in the CoS flashback?) or it could be that Arthur has at least one sibling who also has a lot of kids. So WHERE are all those other Weasleys? Ron should have at least as many cousins attending Hogwarts as he has siblings! Imagine if Athur were one of seven and each of them had seven children! Some would have different surnames (Arthur's sisters' children) but all would have that Weasley red hair! > Is that the reason why Crouch senior continually calls Percy by a > wrong name? I find it unlikely that Arthur and Molly's missing son was named Weatherby Weasley and I find it unlikely that the missing Weasley, only a child, was known to Barty Senior the department head of Magical Law Enforcement. However, I have a theory that Ludo Bagman is such an idiot that he didn't remember that one of Arthur's brood had died and therefore provided enough tickets for all, ie one more ticket than enough for Arthur and Molly and Bill and Charlie and Percy and Fred and George and Ron and Ginny. So Arthur asked the ones who were still living at home to choose to whom to give the extra ticket and they all agreed on Harry (Ron's friend, Ginny's crush, Fred and George's teammate) and then Molly offered to give up her ticket so Hermione could also be invited. Molly did that because she was match- making, but whether she invited Hermione to be Harry's girlfriend or Ron's girlfiend, I have no idea. On another tentacle (it's after midnight and I'm getting vague), Weatherby Weasley could have been one of the Arthur's brothers... The only one we know of is Ron's Uncle Bilius who died from seeing a Grim -- I always imagine that Bill was named after him. From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Mar 30 08:24:27 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:24:27 -0000 Subject: Corrected: Protections on Privet Drive & Put-Outer (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37175 dicentra_spectabilis_alba wrote: > This could be a simple setting of the scene, but I find it especially > telling that the orange light is mentioned right after that horrific > scene in which Frank Bryce listens in on the slimy baby and Wormtail. > This [GoF] is also the book in which Harry loses the protection afforded > him by his mother's death and, possibly, the protection from being > with relatives. > > --Dicentra, who prefers outlandish theories to common sense I doubt that his family's special protection is gone, because if it was so, D'dore wouldn't have insisted that the Dursley's have Harry "at least for a while" before Harry can go with the Weasleys (last chapter of GoF). Whatever ancient magic protects Harry while he's with the Dursleys, it doesn't seem to be related to the scar. In fact, it really cannot be related to the scar: _ancient_ magic implies that it was used a long time ago (druids, anyone?), and we know for sure that Harry's scar it's totally new: it has never happened before, so they cannot really be related. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From kendra_grant at fantasysales.net Sat Mar 30 05:51:40 2002 From: kendra_grant at fantasysales.net (Kendra Grant-Bingham) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 00:51:40 -0500 Subject: Injured Quidditch Players In-Reply-To: <1017382582.8751.5267.m8@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020330004737.00a63330@mail.fantasysales.net> No: HPFGUIDX 37176 Grey Wolf wrote............ >~~~~~On the same trend, who do you think is the student Wood uses to >substitute Harry when he's unable to play (broken arms, facing >Voldemort, etc.)?~~~~~ I was reading in my "Quidditch Through The Ages" book and came across the 'Rules' for Quidditch. Rule # 5 states "In the case of injury, no substitution of players will take place. The team will play on without the injured player." I'm not sure if this rule only applied to players injured in the game or players not playing because of injuries. *S* --- Kendra Grant-Bingham ~~~~~Phoenix Moonshadow Wych~~~~~ "Gryffindor House ...where Friendship and Bravery count." From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Mar 30 08:43:06 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:43:06 -0000 Subject: What to do with Pettigrew, once captured? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37177 Marianne wrote: > Of course, there's the small matter of > Cedric's death. In the wizard world that surely deserves the Kiss. > > Marianne In fact, no, it doesn't. Canon: Using an unforgivable curse on a human being (including AK) (only?) means spending the rest of your life in Azkaban. Nowhere in the books is death sentence invoked as a matter of course. In fact, it is a special situation the one that deserves it: a very dangerous fugitive (Sirius) is on the run and attacking inocent beds and pictures, and Fudge gives permission to the dementors to kill him. Of course, you might be refering to whether Peter *deserves* the dementor's kiss. There was very recently a thread on the matter, but it more or less stopped when it was down to "I understand your point of view, but still do not belive in it". Read it, and form your own oppinion. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Mar 30 08:53:16 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:53:16 -0000 Subject: Free Elves Unite In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37178 Marina wrote: > But then where does the money go? Who do you make the check out to > when you buy an unattached elf? Are they considered property of the > wizarding government? Is there a house-elf tax? > > Marina I'd imagine that liberated elves are not as common as that. Families that want to get rid of one would sell it to another family or the goverment (and indeed, they are property of whomever is the master at that point). I'm not sure you'd have to pay a special tax for having an elf, but then again, maybe you have to (no idea one way or the other). However, *liberated* elves would normally be for free: they'd go to a house and ofer themselves (we know Dobby did that and wasn't accepted because he expected to be paid, not for any other reason). However, if Winky is a good example of how a normal (not eccentric) elf takes the liberation, IMO a liberated elf is NOT prepared to continue working for another family. Those elves probably die if not taken care of. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, on a posting streak From abigailnus at yahoo.com Sat Mar 30 12:20:30 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 12:20:30 -0000 Subject: Arthur Weasley In-Reply-To: <001401c1d767$ae6766e0$35429fc1@i7p8l9> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37179 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., m.bockermann at t... wrote: > > Abigail suggested that Arthur Weasley might have been an auror. While I > don't have much to proof against it, I am not convinced. If that was the > case, wouldn't Ron know about it? And he is not the kind to keep silent > about it. And to be honest... while I think the world of Arthur, I don't > think he is auror kind of material. Too... nice? He doesn't even get really > angry with his kids (see the twins in HP4), so where does he hide the > fierceness that I (personally) associate with an auror. Well, I don't have much proof for this theory, but that's never stopped me before! I agree that Arthur doesn't present as very tough in the books (although I don't think that toughness should be displayed as fierceness towards his children), but I think I can account for that. I see Arthur as Lupin, but with less Edge (and minus the licanthropy, of course.) He's a normal, kind man who is usually very gentle, but with a core of pure Toughness. In the right situation, I can imagine Arthur as a fine auror - level-headed and not too trigger-happy - the kind of auror Mad-Eye Moody might take to. Fierceness, in this case, might not be the most desirable quality. Also, bear in mind we've never met a *real* auror, only fake!Moody, who, as Elkins says, has some personality problems of his own. I think Arthur displays a cool enough head in the few professional situations that we see him in, to convince at least me that he could once have been an auror. I see him as a sort of battle scarred soldier - this works especially well if at some point in his career he was hit with an Imperius curse, which is a horrible violation even if you don't end up doing something evil. When the war was over, all he wanted was to return to his family and live a quiet, normal life, collecting plugs and protecting muggles - perhaps his affection towards them stems from seeing so many of them killed by Death Eaters - he feels protective of them. I think a man who has seen the horrors of war, who probably witnessed horrible atrocities commited by his enemies and no doubt saw many friends and collegues killed, would relish the quiet life, and be very reluctant to let that kind of ugliness back into his home. As for whether the kids know, the younger Weasly children - Percy through Ginny - would have been much too young to understand what was going on around them even if they did remember it 14 years later - Percy, the oldest, would have been 4 or 5 years old. If Arthur really didn't want to talk about his career before the fall, they might never suspect anything. We've seen many times in HP (and in the real world) that children take a long time to question their surroundings and especially their parents. For young children, even Ron's age, parents have just always been there. If Arthur Weasly has headed up Misuse of Muggle Artifacts since Ron was a small child, then in Ron's perspective he's probably always done it. As for the older children, Bill and Charlie would have been about 8-10 when LV fell (although that's a bit of guesswork, more about that later) so they prsumably would have known about Arthur's job *if* he mentioned it at home. If Arthur cherished his home as a sanctuary from the ugliness of his work, he might never say anything about it in front of his children. Or he might have made it clear after the fall that he wouldn't brook any discussion of his previous job with the younger children, and Bill and Charlie would have caught the hint. After all, as Elkins said, the wizarding world has made discussing the war with Voldemort a great taboo, so Bill and Charlie might not have perceived the enforced silence as anything out of the ordinary. Finally, there's the simple fact that we've seen next to nothing of the older Weasly children. Harry only meets them at the beginning of GoF, and then they have more pleasant things to discuss (namely Quidditch) than what their father did during the war, however, when Harry asks, at the end of the scene I quoted in my previous message, who Mad-Eye Moody is, Charlie answers: "He's retired, used to work at the ministry, ... I met him once when Dad took me into work with him." This can be read both ways, I know. And if Arthur was indeed an auror it raises the question of what he was thinking bringing his young son to work, but it does suggest that Bill and Charlie might know more about their father's life before the fall of Voldemort than they've let on so far. > What is certain Abigail, is that you are right about the relationship > between Arthur Weasley and Moody. Judging from the reactions of Arthur and > Molly, Moody has a special place in their heart. Maybe not because he was a > colleague, but because he gave testimony that Arthur was indeed under the > influence of the Imperius curse and could not be faulted for his actions. > That would explain their friendship and places Arthur under the curse > without making him an auror. What do you think. 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. > > Elkins, with your last paragraph you really confused me, I'm afraid. I must > admit that I haven't found anything festering in their family dynamic. > Missing Weasley children? What did I miss? Do you mean that there was > another Weasley child that died during the reign of LV? Is that the reason > why Crouch senior continually calls Percy by a wrong name? Elkins is referring to a theory that's been running around for a while, that there was a eighth Weasly child, between Charlie and Percy, who died during the war. There are two main arguments for this theory as I understand it (I've never seen it laid out properly so this is just stuff I've picked up over the past few months. If anyone finds any mistakes or omissions I apologize.) The first is the disparity of age gaps between the younger Weasly children (Percy through Ginny) and the older ones (Bill and Charlie). Ginny is only a year younger than Ron, who is two years younger than the twins, who are two years younger than Percy (keep in mind that when I say "a year younger" the only information I have to go on is Hogwarts years. We have no idea what the cutoff date for a Hogwarts school year is - are you in your first year if you've turned 11 during the previous year, or if you're going to turn 11 in the coming year, or something in the middle? So the gaps could be larger or smaller, but no bigger than 3 years.) Bill and Charlie, on the other hand, are described as being in their twenties in GoF, and there's sufficient evidence to suggest that Bill could be as old as 25 (again, this is very fuzzy. The evidence about Bill and Charlie's ages is as solid as the evidence about Harry's birth year, or the number of children in Hogwarts - that is to say, not at all. The consensus seems to be that the older children are in or close to their mid-twenties, and for the sake of this theory it's necessary to assume that.) This leaves a gap of several years between Charlie and Percy's births, and given the short gaps between all the other children, some people have suggested that there was an eighth child who died during the war and whose mention is too painful for Arthur and Molly. This theory lends extra poignancy to Arthur's description of coming home and discovering the Dark Mark floating above your house, knowing that everyone inside was dead (as mentioned in chapter 9 of GoF). As Elkins says, given the reluctance to talk about the dark days, Arthur's very emotional reaction might suggest a personal experience of that sort. > I promise I am going to read chapter 9 of GoF. But if I ask really nice, > with sugar and cream, could you explain to me what FEATHERBOAS is and what > kind of theory is behind it? Please? FEATHERBOAS, as I understand it, and here I really should leave the stage to Elkins or someone else but since I'm showing off with my knowledge of one theory I might as well show off with my knowledge of another (does anyone remember those carefree days when all you had to do to be a HP scholar was have encyclopedia-like knowledge of canon? These days the true scholar has to know all the various thoeries and commentaries. It's like being Talmudic scholars with cool acronyms.) is the insignia of those who believe that in order to prove his intentions to Dumbledore when he tried to return to the side of the angels, Snape was forced to arrange an ambush of Death Eaters, and that this ambush was very bloody - possibly the very ambush in which Dolohov, Travers and Mulciber were caught and Rosier and Wilkes killed (there are several permutations of these names, and every FEATHERBOA wearer struggles to include more in his or her ambush to make it Bigger.) The FEATHERBOAS themselves were made from the feathers of Hedwig, Errol and Pigwidgeon, by, I think, Tabouli, and placed around Elkins' (?) unconcious form in order to shame her into giving up her bloodthirsty ways. She had a rather averse reaction to them at first, but now seems to wear them as a badge of honor. (Once again, I apologise if I got the names wrong.) Yup, this is a wacky bunch. Abigail From abigailnus at yahoo.com Sat Mar 30 12:40:22 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 12:40:22 -0000 Subject: Religious Parallels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37180 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "scaryfairymary" wrote: > > While intently following the "Harry as Saviour" posts I began to > mull over another biblical parallel that came to mind. I suppose > it's a blend of the HaS and the "House elves" discussions. > Just as Moses freed the slaves fom Egypt, is Hermione going to free > Dobby and co? Maybe not in such a dramatic fashion, but extremely > important nonetheless. I might not respond to this normally, but it being Passover I feel obligated. I'm not sure how much this comes across in the actual biblical story, but most Torah commentators (and I'm not talking about just the modern guys here, this is going back to the middle ages or even earlier) feel that the reason the Israelites spent 40 years in the desert (when the Sinai can be crossed by a large, well provided group on foot in two weeks or a month) was in order that slavery might be removed from their hearts. The Israelites who arrive in Canaan were, by and large, the children of the slaves, not slaves themselves. They were born free and were therefore willing and capable of fighting for what they wanted. I see the situation with the house-elves as very similar. Before anyone - Hermione, Dobby or anybody else - leads them into freedom they have to actually want freedom - to be free in their hearts, as Dobby is, not natural slaves like Winky. In that sense, I do see a parallel between the Exodus and the house-elves' problem. I've never been certain, though, whether to expect emancipation for the house-elves at the end of the series. As distasteful as I find their condition, there's no denying that they are happy that way. It remains to be seen whether someone can truly free their hearts. Incidentaly, modern thinking on the story of the Exodus completely discredits the notion that a group of several thousand people crossed it at once. The simple fact is that the Sinai is not capable of supporting such a large group of people, and even if it were, it is an archeaological impossibility that they could cross it without leaving any trace of their passage. The return of Israelites to Canann was probably gradual, over many years - hence the 40 years that it took them all to arrive. And now I've gone completely off-topic and probably no-one is interested, so I'll sign off. Abigail From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Mar 30 14:08:53 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:08:53 -0000 Subject: Religious Parallels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37181 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "scaryfairymary" wrote: > > I'd like to hear any feedback, or any other ideas of > religious/biblical parallel. > You might be interested in my post 23737, which points out some similarities between Harry's escape from the Dursleys and the Exodus. Pippin From mercia at ireland.com Sat Mar 30 14:17:41 2002 From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:17:41 -0000 Subject: Werewolf of London? Paris? Where? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37182 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "southernscotland" wrote: > This just struck me on the re-reading of the books: > > Where was Remus during the time that Harry was with the Dursleys? Why > did he never attempt to contact him, or if he did, why did Dumbledore > not allow him to do so? Good question. One possiblility might be that Dumbledore is well aware of how anti-wizarding world the Durlseys are. It seems vital that Harry is left in their care (that ancient protective magic thing) so presumably Dumbledore accepts that this will mean Harry will be unable to have any contact with wizarding folk except in very obscure or hidden ways such as Mrs Figg and being smiled at by Dedelus Diggle. I doubt Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia would have taken kindly to anyone turning up on their doorstep claiming to be a friend of that good for nothing James Potter and wanting to build a relationship with Harry. > > Also, in Book 3, why didn't he tell Harry right up front who he was? > Like, "I was in a very tight group of friends at Hogwarts, which > included your father. Unfortunately, I'm the only one still around > here. I'm so sorry he's dead, come here and I'll tell you all about > him and your mom." > > And should Harry be mad about this omission? I think Remus is sort of building up to tell Harry stuff in PoA but it is part of his nature to do it slowly and gently. He is reticient and perhaps a bit embarrassed about showing feeling - a very English reserve there I feel compounded by the secret he has had to hide for most of his life. It would make it very hard for him to trust peopel and let others into the very centre of his life. Think of his reaction when Harry tells him about hearing Lilly and James when around the Dementor. I haven't got the text to hand but it says something like Lupin made as if to reach out to put an arm round Harry and then thought better of it. He would be concerned I think not to trade on Harry's feelings about his father and would rather build up a relationship with him in his own right before telling him how well he knew James. As people have pointed out before Harry seems slow to question the people who would have known his parents about them. He has a lot of information to handle from age 11 and it would take time to assimiliate it all. We are led to believe that book 5 will see Harry discovering more and more about his family. Of course it is also a very effective plot device allowing JKR to drip feed us the readers with as much or as little information as she wants at any particular point which I think is the main reason we don't get to meet Remus til book 3. Mercia > From mercia at ireland.com Sat Mar 30 14:34:52 2002 From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:34:52 -0000 Subject: Another werewolf question. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37183 Enjoying the very spectacular full moon of the last week got me pondering on this werewolf thing. I admit I am very hazy on the mythology surrounding werewolves but when I thought about it I found Lupin's condition was perhaps a bit inconsistently described. When the crew leave the Shrieking Shack, Lupin only transforms IIRC when the moon appears from behind a cloud and the light of the moon falls upon him. When the moon was hidden by cloud, as it was presumably during his initial dash to the SS and during all the ensuing dialogue, Lupin was his normal self. Yet we know he wasn't 'safe' as he hadn't had his potion. If it takes acutal exposure to direct moonlight to cause Lupin to transform why was it such a problem? All he would have to do to aviod transformation would be to stay inside and keep any windows shuttered or heavily curtained. There would be no need for all those elaborate precautions about the SS while he was at school and no need to plant such a vicious specimen as the Whomping Willow. Not nearly so much fun to read about of course. However most of the other times when Lupin's lycanthropy is described it is certainly implied if not stated directly that he is dangerous throughout the period of the full moon and even after the discovery of the potion transforms into a wolf for the period whether or not he is bathed in moonlight. I presume when he is curled up a 'harmless wolf' in his office during PoA he isn't doing so always in the light of the moon. Even if there are no curtains or sutters on the castle windows, believe me there are many cloudy nights in the Scottish climate when the moon, whether full or not, is well hidden. So is JKR being inconsistent here or am I missing something about the nature of werwolves? Any thoughts? Mercia From Edblanning at aol.com Sat Mar 30 15:45:09 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:45:09 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's oily hair/ Phoenix symbolism (was: Voldemort as Message-ID: <160.b40907b.29d73785@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37184 Porphyria: > > I'm always a little puzzled at the 'why is Snape's hair oily' question and > how people either worry about it *very* literally (and argue, indeed quite > reasonably, that some people just have oily hair) or they take it as a clue > to something we don't already know (a side-effect from an anti-vampire > Eloise: Can I ask this question again? PLEASE will someone explain to me about Dementors and hydrophobia? Porphyria: Maybe I'm being really boring here, but I've always felt that it lay squarely in the > realm of iconographic characterization and hence a) misdirection leading us > (and Harry) to see him as villainous (i.e. sleazy people have greasy hair); > and then b) exactly the way you'd depict someone who is, well I hate to say > it but, clinically depressed, or if that's too strong, beset with grief and > Eloise: I completely agree with (a). It is in addition, I feel, an example of the very shorthand way JKR has of describing people. For each individual, there is a small vocabulary of descriptive phrases or adjectives which get trotted out, with minor variations, time and time again. I'm sure all of us, off the tops of our heads, could make quite a list of these. I started to write a post the last time this topic came up on the list saying more or less that and speculating that the repetition is therefore either highly significant, trying to tell us something, or conversely not important at all, as it is just a signal - mention greasy hair and the rest of the picture slots into place. I'm sorry, but JKR is not the world's greatest at description, no matter what her other strengths. This was particularly brought home to me the other day. We're now listening to Northern LIghts as our in-car book and at one point Philip Pullman describes a smile with incredible complexity, the sort of place where I'm sure JKR would have inserted something like, 'an odd, twisted smile' and left it at that. As to (b), I have some reservations. I certainly don't think he's clinically depressed. As one who has had her depressive patches and, I think, once briefly stepped over the edge into clinical depression, I cannot identify with his being depressed. Sleeplessness obviously can be a symptom, but my experience is that depression is an enervating condition, whereas I always envision him as energetic, his movements brisk and decisive. Depression slows your mental faculties; I would never have had the wit or the energy to come up with his witty, snide remarks. Depression steals your ability to take pleasure from anything in life. I vividly remember driving along on a beautiful spring day such as this ( we're having the most beautiful, balmy weather), the sky blue, the first flush of intense green on the branches, trees covered in blossom, the sort of day which usually makes my heart leap and yet being conscious of feeling nothing, of being unable to summon the slightest joy. I don't think the man who waxes eloquent over his shimmering cauldron can be feeling like that. I'd also make the point that he's *always* had greasy hair, ever since he was at school. Has he been depressed all his life, poor chap? Having said that, I am quite happy for Snape to be beset by grief and self hatred. In fact, going back to my position that he doesn't actually *want* to be a good guy, he can be beset by a double whammy, hating both what he was and what he is! Porphyria: > > I think my question here is why do people wonder about his hair and no one > ever seems to wonder why he wears black all the time (something more > obviously his own personal choice). Snape strikes me as someone who is *in > mourning* and his irritability, bouts of rage and disdain for keeping a > Eloise: Well, you see, I always think he wears black because he has a sense of gothic *style* don't y'know, which contrasts oddly with his greasy hair. I confess that now I'm terribly confused in my Snape image by his appearance in the You-Know-What, where he seemed to be very stylishly attired, but really,is there *any* evidence, other than his hair, that he has disdain for keeping a tidy appearance? His robes are never described as old, or frayed, or splashed (which must be a constant occupational hazard). And before someone brings up the teeth again, there is no evidence that JKR is not simply referring to their natural colour. Not all of us are lucky enough to have naturally brilliant white teeth. (I have the impression from previous discussions that the teeth thing is of more concern to Americans than Brits. One of our no doubt unjustified stereotypes of Americans is that they all have perfect, even, white teeth. Orthodontics and cosmetic dentistry are not quite so important over here.) Porphyria: I think that idea ties in perfectly well with what we know of the Potterverse wherein > nearly all of the adult characters are still traumatized in some way by the > past and Dumbledore is practically the only person who can say "Voldemort" > out loud. This is a society of people who have failed to recover. And Snape > has fairly personal reasons to be in mourning; regardless of whether he's > more grief-stricken at the loss of the Potters or his own fellow > housemates, his generation was decimated. Not to mention his depression and > self-hatred from whatever past actions he blames himself for. At least his > outwardly expressed acrimony (both in looks an! > d behavior) is easier to sympathize with than the tendency towards > avoidance or under-rug sweeping in the manner of Crouch Sr., Fudge, > Karkaroff, the Dursleys or any of the other characters who utterly fail to > face up to the unpleasant realities in their lives. > Here! Here! ............................................ In a message dated 30/03/02 00:46:34 GMT Standard Time, mongobongo38 at yahoo.com writes: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "coriolan_cmc2001" wrote: > > > > Symbols - as opposed to allegories - are (as Freud said) open to > > hyperinterpretation: that is, they can be (indeed, must be) > > interpreted on multiple levels to be fully understood. Interpreting > > JKR's Phoenix in an alchemical manner, or establishing a literary > > link to Nesbit does not invalidate the Christian interpretation. > > As, of course, a Christian interpretation does not invalidate an > alchemical one. And of course, the first book was entitled Harry > Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, not Harry Potter and the Holy > Trinity. > > Children, children! This isn't a competition! I am reminded of the Philip Pullman's alethiometer (if that's how it's spelled). Every symbol on the dial has many levels of meaning. Given the culture in which JKR is writing, one might suggest that the prime symbolism, that which is going to be most easily understood, is Christian, on the other hand, as the phoenix in question is owned by an alchemist, then the prime meaning may be alchemical.The problem with this as a meaning for the symbol is that alchemy is even more obscure to most people these days than Christianity. I should imagine that JKR had both meanings in mind. Now shake hands, you two! Eloise (who is mystied by the Porter/Gershwin reference attached to the last-quoted post) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From porphyria at mindspring.com Sat Mar 30 20:08:02 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 12:08:02 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's oily hair, depression, insomnia In-Reply-To: <160.b40907b.29d73785@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37185 In my post on Snape's hair, I mentioned an old theory: Eloise asked in reply: > Can I ask this question again? PLEASE will someone explain to me about > Dementors and hydrophobia? You might already realize this, but this was something Cindy came up with, round about post #33862. I shall defer any further explanation to her. Me again: > ?? Maybe I'm being really boring here, but I've always felt that it lay > squarely in the > > realm of iconographic characterization and hence a) misdirection > leading us > > (and Harry) to see him as villainous (i.e. sleazy people have greasy > hair); > > and then b) exactly the way you'd depict someone who is, well I hate > to say > > it but, clinically depressed, or if that's too strong, beset with > grief and Eloise: > I completely agree with (a). It is in addition, I feel, an example of > the > very shorthand way JKR has of describing people. For each individual, > there > is a small vocabulary of descriptive phrases or adjectives which get > trotted > out, with minor variations, time and time again. > <...> > I'm sorry, but JKR is not the world's greatest at description, no > matter what her other strengths. This was particularly brought home to > me the > other day. We're now listening to Northern LIghts as our in-car book > and at > one point Philip Pullman describes a smile with incredible complexity, > the > sort of place where I'm sure JKR would have inserted something like, > 'an odd, > twisted smile' and left it at that. Tee hee. I agree with you there. I always have to wonder whether the stock description of Snape which is trotted out rather laboriously every book is trying to drum secret clues into our heads, or whether JKR just thinks her readers will somehow forget what Snape looks like from book to book. I tend to think it's the latter, I'm afraid. > As to (b), I have some reservations. I certainly don't think he's > clinically > depressed. Well, I did hesitate to use that term for a reason. Let me explain. He's a literary character. To that extent, there is no sense in "diagnosing" his condition. He doesn't have a real psyche, real brain chemistry, etc. He's *really* a collection of symbols and characteristics. These include: black clothes, irritable disposition, rage triggered on account of certain hot spots, greasy hair *in his eyes all the time* and thus a little unkempt. So what I'm saying is this is JKR's shorthand for something, and apart from villain-misdirection, I think it's shorthand for something like a prolonged mourning, a failure to get over something, sort-of-but-not-quite like lots of other adults in the book. I agree it's not like depression IRL (and I've known my share), but I'd say for a literary character in a book designed to be accessible to both young and old, it's close enough for jazz. Another thing about Snape is that he's overdetermined. By which I mean JKR seems to be cramming a lot of symbolism and meaning into him at once. This sometimes winds up being at cross purposes and contradictory. Thus we sometimes get the image of someone energetic and in love with his craft, and other times someone so oppressed by his inner demons that he becomes completely derailed. Sometimes he seems disdainful about his appearance and sometimes (such as in the Celluloid Beast) he looks damned fine stylish. (I admit my appetite for black-wear might be excessive, but I'm not alone in this opinion.) And yes, sometimes it seems like whatever's eating him must have been the result of the last conflict with LV, and sometimes it seems, like his hair, to have always been with him since childhood. In that last case, I'd still say it qualifies as villain-misdirection, since Sirius' description of him occurred at a point in time when Snape was on the short list of suspects who might have put Harry's name in the goblet, and Sirius' description of him was probably not above being a little mean-spirited. But it's just impossible to imagine he had a happy childhood, isn't it? So it's probably a little of both. Mind you, I'm not criticizing JKR's complex depiction of him; it is after all what keeps us arguing about it *two years* after we've had any new material, and it makes him seem fairly three-dimensional. However, here's one thing I've been itching to mention for awhile, even though it runs counter to my Snape-is-sort-of-symbolically-depressed argument. I'm hoping people will argue with me about this. Here it is: Snape is not an insomniac. He does not *make a habit* of prowling the school late at night, if by late at night you mean after the time at which you would expect a grown man to go to bed. I've been combing the canon for an essay I'm writing and I can back this claim up. If anyone would like to dispute me on this I will post a very LOONy list of Snape-encounters with notes on the time of day. :-) If there *is* a professor who is afflicted with insomnia, that honor would have to go to McGonagall (maybe she's the real vampire! <*cough*>). ~~Porphyria, who, being a horrid Yank, always imagined that a British character who merely had yellow, uneven teeth was the UK equivalent of Donny Osmond. >:-D [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Sat Mar 30 18:13:10 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:13:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: Quidditch Cup Winners / Centaur Teachers Message-ID: <20020330181310.85873.qmail@web21104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37186 I don't know if the question on the QCup winners has been answered yet -- I just breezed through my hundreds of new mail. Anyway, Ravenclaw won in yr 1 (my house, you know), nobody won in yr 2 since the matches were cancelled, and of course Gryffindor won in yr 3. I liked the way JKR handled this -- not much of a big deal but it would be too cheesy if Gryffindor won them all. I think centaurs would make good Divination teachers. Those 'ruddy stargazers' seem interested in what they do and they don't look fake to me (at least compared to the non-trance Trelawney). But of course it may be just stargazing that they know. Do they have teacups at all? Oh, and Happy Easter! (Hope this greeting reaches you on time.) -Ron Yu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover http://greetings.yahoo.com/ From uncmark at yahoo.com Sat Mar 30 20:08:13 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:08:13 -0000 Subject: Hair and Beauty in the Wizarding World Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37187 I was reading posts on Snape's oily hair and rembered something I posted last month. If you hade magical powers, wouldn't you be as beautiful as possible? Or in a world of Magic would the views of beauty differ? Snape is content to leave his oily hair long and greasy. If there was a potion that could fix hair, wouldn't the Hogwart's Potion Master have it? Before the Yule Ball, Hermione spends three hours getting ready, not Long by our Muggle standards, straightening her bushy hair. (I'm picturing the before and after actress in the Princess Diaries.) Hermione impresses everyone, and admits to using 'liberal amounts of Sleekeasy's Hair Potion... "but its too much bother to use every day."' So there is hair potion, Is it just that Hermione considers it too much trouble or that she values books more than looks? Remember Krum asked her out before she used the potion. (I think he enjoyed meeting a girl he could talk to who didn't faun over him just because he was a sports star.)Remember Hermione's quote "They only like him because he's famous!" I reread sections of the books dealing with the wizard media. There is no mention of a wizard equivalent of TV or Movies. The wizards at the world cup didn't even know the difference between men and women's clothes. There was a best smile contest in Witch's Weekly, but no equivalant to Cosmo with unrealistic views of beauty. There is talk of wizarding cures for acne and Eloise Midgen accidentally cursed her nose off. and Gilderoy Lockheart slept in curlers and talked about making a line of hair acre products. It would be a good topic for discussion. Would you use a spell instead of buying makeup? Would there be sufficient motivation (profit) to get skilled wizards making instant beauty spells? Uncmark From graceofmyheart at hotmail.com Sat Mar 30 20:57:38 2002 From: graceofmyheart at hotmail.com (flower_fairy12) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:57:38 -0000 Subject: Another werewolf question. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37188 "meglet2" wrote: > Even if there are no curtains or sutters on the castle windows, > believe me there are many cloudy nights in the Scottish climate when > the moon, whether full or not, is well hidden. So is JKR being > inconsistent here or am I missing something about the nature of > werwolves? Any thoughts? > I think it is only when the moon is on full show and not hidden by clouds that he transforms. When he steps out of the Shack, the moon is only just being uncovered by the clouds and he them turns to Werewolf. Rosie http://magic-hogwarts.com From merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com Sat Mar 30 17:00:24 2002 From: merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com (Sherlock (a.k.a Merlyn)) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:00:24 +0000 Subject: Questions regarding Snape's past and the choices he made. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37189 In what circumstances do you believe Snape left Voldemort's circle of Death Eaters? Do you believe he went because he realised how wrong it all was, or became scared or in fear of his own life? Did he go willinginly to Dumbledore? Or did Voldemort send him to be his spy, and Snape chose to become Dumbledore's spy instead? Is Snape a double agent, or just a plain spy for one side? Do you believe he served time in Azakaban even though he was a spy on Dumbledore/Ministry of Magic's side? If he did serve time, how long did he served and how did he take it? Was he offered a job and a second chance from Dumbledore whilst he was in Azakaban or was it after he was released? When he joined the school as a teacher, was he like he is now, or did years of isolation and being left out of other teacher activity turn in him into how he is now? How did he confess? Did he just confess and was believed, or confess and wasn't believed and so forced to take a truth potion? If he was forced into taking a truth potion, how did he react to that? What do you believe he did for Voldemort? Was he in his inner circle? Did he just make potions for Voldemort? If he just made potions, what sort of potions did he make? Did he join Voldemort straight after leaving Hogwarts or did he complete some sort of Potions degree? Why do you believe Snape wants the Defence against the Dark Arts job? Is it to make young people aware and stop them going down the path he went down? Or is it for a completly different reason? Do you believe he actually wants the job, or is Harry just suspicious of him because of his relationship with most of the Defence against the Dark Arts teachers? As you can probably guess, I bored with nothing to do and at the moment trying to deal with an overly active imagination and ideas hedgehog who won't leave me alone. So what do you think? 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 _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From ritadarling at ivillage.com Sat Mar 30 21:35:01 2002 From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (ritadear2) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:35:01 -0000 Subject: Hair and Beauty in the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37190 Uncmark wrote: "If you hade magical powers, wouldn't you be as beautiful as possible? Or in a world of Magic would the views of beauty differ?" This is something that I have given a considerable amount of thought to, usually during my own beauty routine ;-). In my fantasies about the wizarding world, they are less inclined to the anorexic body types and favor a more normal figure, lol. "Snape is content to leave his oily hair long and greasy. If there was a potion that could fix hair, wouldn't the Hogwart's Potion Master have it?" Yes, I am sure he would. There is no discussion/description of him being otherwise unclean--no mention of offensive body odor or unwashed clothing, so I had assumed that his "greasy" hair was not of a dirty sort, but instead something he liked or just the way his hair was in a normal hygienic state and he just didn't care at all. He's got bigger things on his mind than the state of his hair! "So there is hair potion, Is it just that Hermione considers it too much trouble or that she values books more than looks?" I'd imagine this to be true, too. She can't possibly be spending three hours to get her hair under control on a daily basis. Besides, Rita Skeeter described her as pretty or attractive or something with her hair all wild anyway, and Krum found her attractive enough to ask her out, and Ron is obviously smitten. I don't think Hermione needs to fuss with hair potion to be pretty. "It would be a good topic for discussion. Would you use a spell instead of buying makeup? Would there be sufficient motivation (profit) to get skilled wizards making instant beauty spells?" Oh, gawd yes! I'd also like to find a hair color I like and somehow make it stay that way! But, I also remember Prof. McGonagall making a remark to one of the Patil sisters about a decorative hair clip, telling her to get that ridiculous thing out of her hair. So, do the witches wear makeup? Do they change their hair color? Is ornamentation, aside from dress robes, considered frivolous and silly? Another thing, on the same lines, I have been thinking about...do wizards and witches exercise? I know they laugh at muggles for lifting heavy objects, but, as I dilligently go about my exercise routines, I wonder, do they? Do they need to? Their physiology is the same as ours, from what we know, except they live longer, so it seems that keeping stong muscles and stamina would be important as well. And, with what I've read they eat there on a regular basis, it seems they'd need something to get that cholesterol under control. Can you imagine McGonagal doing pilates? LOL, or Snape in a martial arts class? Tee hee hee. Rita From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sat Mar 30 22:45:11 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:45:11 -0000 Subject: Hair and Beauty in the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37191 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ritadear2" wrote: > Another thing, on the same lines, I have been thinking about...do > wizards and witches exercise? I know they laugh at muggles for > lifting heavy objects, but, as I dilligently go about my exercise > routines, I wonder, do they? Do they need to? Their physiology > is the same as ours, from what we know, except they live longer, > so it seems that keeping stong muscles and stamina would be > important as well. And, with what I've read they eat there on a > regular basis, it seems they'd need something to get that > cholesterol under control. Can you imagine McGonagal doing > pilates? LOL, or Snape in a martial arts class? Tee hee hee. Good question. I have this theory that doing magic burns up a lot of calories, which is why we don't see many fat witches or wizards around, but of course calorie burning is not enough. Quidditch seems to provide a pretty good all-around workout, but what about those who don't play? I suspect most wizards and witches are badly out of shape. Then again, most Muggles in Western society are badly out of shape, too, so it probably doesn't make much difference. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From wgsilvester at shaw.ca Sat Mar 30 03:10:09 2002 From: wgsilvester at shaw.ca (wsilvester) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 03:10:09 -0000 Subject: JKRs Parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37192 I recently finished reading two biographies concerning Joanne Rowling and found a number of discrepancies, only one of which I intend to address here. The books in question are Marc Shapiro's "JKR: The Wizard behind Harry Potter" and Lindsey Fraser's "An Interview with JKR". (I read the comments about Shapiro's book in your FAQ section.) Shapiro stated that Peter Rowling was the manager of an aircraft factory (HPfG says Rolls Royce factory) and Ann worked as a lab technician at the time they met. Fraser quotes JKR as saying "Dad was in the Navy and Mum was a Wren and they were both travelling to a posting in Arbroath". My conclusion was (assuming both statements are accurate)that Peter and Ann had full time jobs and were also members of the Naval Reserve. Does anyone know wherein lies the truth? "wsilvester" From m.bockermann at t-online.de Sat Mar 30 22:42:19 2002 From: m.bockermann at t-online.de (m.bockermann at t-online.de) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:42:19 +0100 Subject: Arthur Weasley as Auror and Missing Weasley References: <1017497868.2925.32073.m3@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <003401c1d83e$7ca14400$5a1de23e@i7p8l9> No: HPFGUIDX 37193 Hi everybody! Thanks to Abigail and catlady_de_los_angeles for their answers about the Missing Weasley inquiry and arguing on the behalf of the Arthur-as-an-auror and Arthur-as-imperiused theories. You are growing a believer here, you know. ;-) Abigail, if I understand you correctly, there are two main arguements for the Missing-Weasley-theory: the age gap between Charlie and Percy and the horror with which Arthur Weasley talks about the Dark Mark. Personally, I find these arguements already convincing. But if these are the two main arguements, I might have found another. If I am correct, JKR gives us a hint right at the *start* of the series, making her the one-and-only Queen of Dropping Hints. Remember the *first* real conversation between Ron and Harry in the Hogwarts in HP1? (Sorry, I don't have my English version at hand so I have to retranslate. I'm going to look it up, but I doubt that much content was lost in either translation.) Harry: ".... I wished, I three wizard brothers, too." "Five," said Ron. For some reason, his expression darkened. "I'm the sixth in my family who is going to Hogwarts... ." Up to now, I always thought the meaning of this was obvious: that Ron is annoyed because of his bad starting point. He is neither the oldest - making him responsible and reliable, as is often associated with older siblings. Nor has he the advantage of the twins of having a "special buddy", nor does he have the cuteness bonus of the youngest. He only gets hands me downs and he is suffering from the fact that everyone has high hopes for him - but if he succeeds, it's nothing special. He is adequatly frustated by this. This interpretation is reinforced later in the series, again and again, when Ron is frustated by the poverty of his family or his place in the family. But if you assume that there has been another Weasley child, the statement takes on a double meaning (even in the retranslation). The shadow on Ron's face would then be the result of thinking of a sibling he never knew. Note that he is *not* saying: "I'm the sixth child." He *says*: "I'm the sixth in the family to go to Hogwarts". The sixth to go to Hogwarts is not necessarily the sixth that has been born, however. At this point of time, Ron and Harry hardly know each other. There is no reason that Ron would tell Harry about the dead sibling, like: "Five. It might have been six, but the same person that killed your parents and caused your scar killed one of my brothers." That would neither sound like Ron, nor like anybody else who is getting to know a near stranger. Later in the series, Ron and Harry have no reason to speak about the subject again. And such a subject usually does not come up in casual conversation. If I'm correct, then this scene contains as much of a double meaning, as the scene with Remus Lupin in HP3. Sudden, unexpected and/or violent death has a way of imposing many repercussions on a family. Those repercussions can be often felt for a *long* time, I believe. A personal example: in my family, three family members died in a car crash, ten years before I was born. That happened more than thirty years ago, but it *still* influences us in many ways: our travelling speed, choice of cars and the opinion about how quickly one needs to get from here to there. Ron, to our amusement, has exhibited a deep superstition. He might not take Trewlany very seriously, but he does believe in signs. If somebody in his family died a violent death and there had been - by chance or design - something that could/should have warned the family or a Dark Mark floating over the house and thus announcing a violent death... then I suppose that would cause considerable superstition in such a family. The death of Uncle Bilius and the grim would be just oil for a fire that is already burning brightly. I'm already leaning very far out of the window, since I'm speculating wildly here. Let me lean a little farther... If Arthur Weasley had been an auror, his family would have been a target for attacks by Deatheaters. If he ingnored the warnings and continued with his work, the death of one of the children might have been an act of revenge or "Deatheater justice". The Weasley's might consider Arthur's work as the cause of the death, if even indirectly. That in turn would explain why Arthur does not speak about his past work. Double that explanation, if he was indeed under the Imperius curse and did something then that left one of his family without protection. Elkins suggested that Moody/Crouch jr. was mean and sadistic when in DADA he addressed those Gryffindors that have suffered under the Unforgivable curses: Ron, Neville and Harry. Maybe his sadism shows at another time as well? Remember that he suggests that Harry would be a good auror? He does so in Ron's earshot, indirectly (but not necessarily unintentionally) causing him to wander if he would be a good auror, too. That would be cruel, don't you think? Waking the wish in a child to be something that caused his family a disaster. It would be, as if Arthur Weasly had been a fireman, who could not prevent one of the family dying in a fire. And Ron, being instigated by Moody to become a fireman, not knowing that his father had been one and failed. OK, I know I don't have much to support this. On the other hand, it does not contradict any known facts and it is in keeping with a topic JKR considered essential in the series: death. Greetings, Barbara Jebenstreit (who admits to loving tragic and dark theories but wishes you folks a great weakend, anyway :-) ) From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Sat Mar 30 23:40:49 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:40:49 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Another werewolf question. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37194 "meglet2" >If it takes acutal exposure to direct moonlight to cause Lupin to >transform why was it such a problem? All he would have to do to >aviod transformation would be to stay inside and keep any windows >shuttered or heavily curtained. There would be no need for all those >elaborate precautions about the SS while he was at school and no >need to plant such a vicious specimen as the Whomping Willow. Not >nearly so much fun to read about of course. Of course not. :) But that's not the reason J.K. set it up like that. >So is JKR being >inconsistent here or am I missing something about the nature of >werwolves? Any thoughts? I'm not an expert in astronomy, and don't claim to be, but when the moon rises, there is only a small amount of time when the moon is *completely* full. Sorry I can't explain it any better than that. :( Liz _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat Mar 30 23:52:09 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:52:09 -0000 Subject: Brush Up Your Latin (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37195 Brush Up Your Latin (To the tune of Brush Up Your Shakespeare, from Kiss Me, Kate) Here a MIDI at http://www.broadwaymidi.com/shows/kiss_me_kate.html Dedicated to Mariner (I wrote several verses a few months ago; Mariner's Brush Up Your Curses - #36736 - inspired me to complete it) Note: Most of the Latin I use should require no translation for the HP reader. "Lingua mortuus" is "dead language," and "Allegro Con Brio" (which is actually Italian) means "Fast with vigor" (an indication of musical tempo). "Carpe Diem" is "Seize the Day" THE SCENE: Gryffindor Commom Area. Enter HERMIONE HERMIONE Jo in her Potter-versity Wanted some lingual diversity She said, "You can show folks are smart you is, Speaking a lingua mortuus." She ruled out Sanskrit and Ancient Greek And Babylonian sounds so weak. When we cast our magic and spells and such We don't use Latvian, Welsh or Dutch. "When wizards teach the young I don't want `em talkin' Hobbit. So I'll learn you the tongue Once used by Virgil and Ovid." Brush up your Latin Start chanting it clear Your grade point'll fatten And you'll whiz through seven years Your report card won't give you a tantrum If you know Priori Incantatem If you're studyin' like you're supposed ta You'll say Wingardium Leviosa Your teacher will exclaim "Correct-o!" If Patronum comes after Expecto Brush up your Latin `Cause our NEWTs draw near Brush up your Latin Inflect every verb You'll take Manhattan Your reviews will be superb Once you learn how to utter Accio You will do it Allegro con brio You will dance like a Whirling Dervious When you know what is meant by Impervius. If you need a terrifical quote for us Just cite the Petrificus Totalus Brush up your Latin To the wise this word. Brush up your Latin Declaim it precise You'll sleep in satin If you take this good advice Make a pledge that you'll Carpe the Diem Memorize Lumos and Aparecium They won't treat you with condescend-ium When they see you calling out, "Dissendium". Once you see Titillandus means "tickle us" You will laugh at our motto Riddikulus. Brush up your Latin You will sound concise! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From scaryfairymary at hotmail.com Sun Mar 31 00:04:16 2002 From: scaryfairymary at hotmail.com (scaryfairymary) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:04:16 -0000 Subject: Hair and Beauty in the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37196 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" wrote: > I was reading posts on Snape's oily hair and rembered something I > posted last month. If you hade magical powers, wouldn't you be as > beautiful as possible? Or in a world of Magic would the views of > beauty differ? > As has been discussed in the past, there has to be some kind of limits to the ability of magic to change things. I believe that one of these limits is that a witch or wizard cannot alter their appearance. If this was not the case, everyone in the WW would be constantly changing their appearance in order to conform to the latest accepted view of beauty. It is another of my (just formed) theories, that maybe the wizarding community *can* to a certain extent superficially change some aspects of their outwardly appearance. (I know this completely contradicts my previous paragraph, but thats just the strange way my mind works!) There could have been, at some stage in the past, a situation as I outlined in the above paragraph with everyone changing their looks as often as the seasons change, but that everyone just got fed up with it all. Apart from the obvious inconvenience of not being able to recognise one another from one day to the next!! However it strikes me that people in the WW just don't put the obscene amount of emphasis on physical appearance as we do IRL (with the obvious exception ao Lockhart!) They seem to be a lot more comfortable with themselves than we are. They also have a much more old fashioned society. Even though they are living side by side with us technologically fairly advanced Muggles, they havent felt the need to adopt our meaningless gadgets, eg. the only example of a computer in the story is Dudley's mind numbing alien/monster shoot'em ups, and is viewed with much disdain. (although i suppose most of this can be attributed to the fact that they dont need electricity) As a result of this, I feel that a lot of old fashioned values/ideas have remained in their collective psyche. Even the Witches Weekly "smile of the week competition" is somewhat reminiscent of the past, a kind of sincere nievety, that is lost in modern day society. I think this is mirrored in the way in which they view "good looks" in a more open minded way, and thus their lack in desire to physically alter themselves. Well there's all my contradicting theories expressed in a very confusing manner!!! -Mary- From igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk Sun Mar 31 00:42:22 2002 From: igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk (Olwyn) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:42:22 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hair and Beauty in the Wizarding World References: Message-ID: <000b01c1d84c$ec307f80$0200a8c0@blueyonder.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 37197 This is a reply to noone in particular really, just a thought that I had after a discussion with one of my friends today. She recently started working in a 'well known fast food place' and because she's working with in a kitchen all day she comes home extremely greasy and even though she showerd and everything the next day because of the heat and the fat etc she's a mess again. Maybe this is the thing with Snape, he works with potions all day in a dungeon that possibly has no real ventilation to speak of so maybe thats what causes it and not a lack of caring or anything like that, it's a failing of the job. Just a thought, sorry if anyones mentioned it before. Olly. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zoehooch at yahoo.com Sun Mar 31 01:21:23 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:21:23 -0000 Subject: Hair and Beauty in the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37198 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > Good question. I have this theory that doing magic burns up a lot > of calories, which is why we don't see many fat witches or wizards > around, but of course calorie burning is not enough. Quidditch > seems to provide a pretty good all-around workout, but what about > those who don't play? I suspect most wizards and witches are badly > out of shape. I imagine all the stair-climbing around the castle helps keep everyone in pretty good shape. Zoe Hooch From ritadarling at ivillage.com Sun Mar 31 00:28:40 2002 From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (ritadear2) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:28:40 -0000 Subject: Questions regarding Snape's past and the choices he made. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37199 Steph wrote: a bunch of questions about Snape, which I will answer, lol, because I too, am bored tonight and love to ponder Snape. "In what circumstances do you believe Snape left Voldemort's circle of Death Eaters? Do you believe he went because he realised how wrong it all was, or became scared or in fear of his own life? Did he go willinginly to Dumbledore? Or did Voldemort send him to be his spy, and Snape chose to become Dumbledore's spy instead?" I believe that something happened that made Snape "see the light". There are lots of theories about this, many are much better than mine. In my opinion, I think something happened to his parents at the hand of Voldemort and when he found out about it (perhaps as a punishment for something) he became outraged and left. Or maybe he just didn't like groveling for Voldemort and maybe thought he'd be a bigger fish working on Dumbledore's side--which he is, as it is, he is pretty much Dumbledore's right-hand-man, it seems. So, maybe he was just seeking glory and appreciation. Which might be why he resents Harry. He was kind of IT until Harry came along and has better ideas and more trust than he does. "Is Snape a double agent, or just a plain spy for one side? Do you believe he served time in Azakaban even though he was a spy on Dumbledore/Ministry of Magic's side? If he did serve time, how long did he served and how did he take it? Was he offered a job and a second chance from Dumbledore whilst he was in Azakaban or was it after he was released?" It seems to me he was cleared of his charges, so I doubt he served time in Azkaban. I also think he just spied for Dumbledore, but I think Voldemort thought he was spying for him. "When he joined the school as a teacher, was he like he is now, or did years of isolation and being left out of other teacher activity turn in him into how he is now?" Sounds to me like he was like he is now (you know, petty, jealous, grudge-holding, brilliant, etc.) while he was a student at Hogwarts. And, I don't know that he IS left out of teacher activity, he and McGonagall seem to get along, like they have a friendly sort of house rivalry, based on mutual respect. He also seems to get along well with Filch and Hagrid, as well as the Big D himsef. I bet Snape has a great sense of humor when among his peers. "How did he confess? Did he just confess and was believed, or confess and wasn't believed and so forced to take a truth potion? If he was forced into taking a truth potion, how did he react to that?" My guess is he confessed, which is why Dumbledore took him in and put him in a position of trust. He also changed sides before the big showdown, which I think is important. I can imagine a scene where he went to Dumbledore with the information about his parents (in my theory above) and Dumbledore, having been in the know all along, taking him in and giving him another chance. "What do you believe he did for Voldemort? Was he in his inner circle? Did he just make potions for Voldemort? If he just made potions, what sort of potions did he make? Did he join Voldemort straight after leaving Hogwarts or did he complete some sort of Potions degree?" I think he'd have to have been in the inner circle in order to have the dark mark. I would imagine that working with Voldemort probably increased his potions ability, but he has demonstrated that he is a powerful wizard in other areas, too--the counterspell at the quiddich match in the first book, disarming Lockhardt, etc.. "Why do you believe Snape wants the Defence against the Dark Arts job? Is it to make young people aware and stop them going down the path he went down? Or is it for a completly different reason? Do you believe he actually wants the job, or is Harry just suspicious of him because of his relationship with most of the Defence against the Dark Arts teachers?" I don't know that Snape does want the DADA position. We've only heard that he does from students, and really, what do they know? I can't imagine him believing he would get it, if he really did want it, since it would really tarnish his image as a potentially dark wizard if he were teaching *defense* against the dark arts. Might raise eyebrows among his former death eater peers who think he's still on their side. A rumor might have been started (by himself, or maybe Dumbledore, who is historically not above allowing rumors to distract students from the truth, like the shrieking shack) that Snape wants the DADA job, but isn't allowed to have it, in order to perpetuate his image of a man in angst. Or to make it seem like he and Dumbledore aren't really eye-to-eye, and that there is some dissention between them. Please forgive any misspellings, I see I can't access my spellcheck on the board, and I have become so very dependent on that feature! Rita From ProfSnapeFan at aol.com Sat Mar 30 23:05:31 2002 From: ProfSnapeFan at aol.com (ProfSnapeFan at aol.com) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:05:31 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Questions regarding Snape's past and the choices he made. Message-ID: <8f.19b1da9c.29d79ebb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37200 My goodness, what a list of questions, but being equally bored this evening I'll give some of them a shot :-). Also haven't had a chance to reread the books lately so forgive me if I go against canon w/ my ideas. In a message dated 3/30/2002 5:21:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com writes: > In what circumstances do you believe Snape left Voldemort's circle of Death > Eaters? I don't know for sure obviously but I always figured that he got sucked in by Lucius and his other slytherin pals and then realized how wrong it was, perhaps when the killings started, especially killing people he had gone to school with. That may have been when he went to Dumbledore and started giving information, trying to prevent more killings, etc. Just an idea. > Is Snape a double agent, or just a plain spy for one side? I think spy for one side. > Do you believe he > served time in Azakaban even though he was a spy on Dumbledore/Ministry of > Magic's side? Didn't the books say no? That he was never sent to Azkaban because Dumbledore spoke up for him. > If he did serve time, how long did he served and how did he > take it? See above answer -- if he was there at all maybe he was held for a couple days before trial, but my main inclination is to say none. > When he joined the school as a teacher, was he like he is now, or did years > of isolation and being left out of other teacher activity turn in him into > how he is now? Perhaps both, I'm sure associating with Voldemort and the deatheaters, even as a spy caused him to be somewhat as cold as he is. And I would imagine that being a known deatheater most of the teachers did exclude him from activities, or either were just not very friendly to him, causing him to become even more reclusive. Once again all supposition on my part. > How did he confess? Did he just confess and was believed, or confess and > wasn't believed and so forced to take a truth potion? If he was forced into > taking a truth potion, how did he react to that? Confess to Dumbledore? Or at the trial? I don't believe he said much at the trial did he? He didn't have to. If confessing to dumbledore about being a spy I would assume that D'dore would have believed him w/o a truth potion. > What do you believe he did for Voldemort? Was he in his inner circle? Did he > just make potions for Voldemort? If he just made potions, what sort of > potions did he make? Did he join Voldemort straight after leaving Hogwarts > or did he complete some sort of Potions degree? I haven't the faintest idea, and can't even begin to guess on these. > Why do you believe Snape wants the Defence against the Dark Arts job? Is it > to make young people aware and stop them going down the path he went down? That's what I figure, that and because he knows firsthand just what the danger is, and also the mentality of the deatheaters. The other DADA teachers have been largely inept at their job (with exception of Lupin), not preparing the students thoroughy (in his opinion I'm sure) for any kind of defense against the dark arts, therefore creating a whole new batch of defenseless victims for Voldemort and the death eaters to prey on. "ProSnapeFan" From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Sun Mar 31 02:42:58 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 02:42:58 -0000 Subject: Snape and insomnia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37201 Porphyria wrote an excellant post, in which she many insightful things, including: > Snape is not an insomniac. He does not *make a habit* of prowling > the school late at night, if by late at night you mean after the > time at which you would expect a grown man to go to bed. I've been > combing the canon for an essay I'm writing and I can back this claim > up. If anyone would like to dispute me on this I will post a very > LOONy list of Snape-encounters with notes on the time of day. :-) If > there *is* a professor who is afflicted with insomnia, that honor > would have to go to McGonagall (maybe she's the real vampire! > <*cough*>). I agree completely. Frankly, I've been mystified by all the times Snape has been described on this list "as prowling around after dark." Sure, he does run into Harry a lot. However, many of these times are during the day: in PS/SS, when he tells the trio they should be outside; in PoA, when Harry is trying to sneak off to Hogsmeade; in GoF, when Snape won't let Harry in to see Dumbledore. The times when Harry sees Snape wandering around after dark, there is usually a good reason: For example, in GoF ("The egg and the eye" chapter), Snape comes into the corridor because he hears Harry's egg wailing. It's clear that Snape was in bed before that (he is wearing a nightshirt and speaks of going *back* to bed.) And, the egg woke Filch, too. There are also some times when Harry sees Snape in the corridors after dark, but Snape is there because of some danger that has caused all the staff to take up patrol duty. I can't remember if this happens in CoS (guarding against the monster), or PoA (guarding against Sirius), or both. -- Judy, defending Snape as usual From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Sun Mar 31 04:40:52 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 04:40:52 -0000 Subject: Questions regarding Snape's past and the choices he made. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37202 Sherlock (a.k.a Merlyn, aka Steph) had a bunch of questions about Snape: > In what circumstances do you believe Snape left Voldemort's circle > of Death Eaters? There was a bunch of Snapetheories posted here about 6 to 8 weeks ago; they should be in the archives. My theory is that Snape loved Lily and left Voldemort's services when he learned that Voldemort was targeting the Potters. > Do you believe he went because he realised how wrong it all was...? Yes > Is Snape a double agent, or just a plain spy for one side? I think he's loyal to Dumbledore. > Do you believe he served time in Azakaban..? No, Sirius said he was never even charged with being a DE. Also, we saw Dumbledore vouch for Snape in the Pensieve scene. > When he joined the school as a teacher, was he like he is now, or > did years of isolation and being left out of other teacher activity > turn in him into how he is now? I don't think he *is* isolated at Hogwarts. He seems to be one of the staff closest to Dumbledore. In the staffroom scene in CoS, the other teachers all back him up. Sirius implies that Snape has always been unpleasant, oily-haired, and into the dark arts, even as a young student. It's possible that Sirius is exaggerating, but I doubt tht Snape was ever sweetness and light. > How did he confess? Did he just confess and was believed..? I think Dumbledore gave him a good twinkling and believed him, without spells or potions. > What do you believe he did for Voldemort? Was he in his inner > circle?... Did he join Voldemort straight after leaving > Hogwarts or did he complete some sort of Potions degree? Not sure what he did for Voldemort, although I assume making potions was part of it. There is a theory that the DEs *are* Voldemort's inner circle, and that there are other, lower ranking followers of Voldemort. However, I think Snape was just too young to be high-ranking in Voldemort's organization. I believe JKR has said that there are no advanced degress in the Wizarding World. I think Snape joined the DEs while still a student at Hogwarts, probably right after Sirius pulled the Prank. > Why do you believe Snape wants the Defence against the Dark Arts job? ... Do you believe he actually wants the job.... I don't think he actually wants the job. I think this is a misperception on the part of the students. -- Judy, who should have combined this with her last post, but hadn't been planning on answering this tonight From Whirdy at aol.com Sun Mar 31 05:44:18 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:44:18 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Injured Quidditch Players Message-ID: <49.1af9ef2b.29d7fc32@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37203 In a message dated 3/30/02 3:36:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, kendra_grant at fantasysales.net writes: << I was reading in my "Quidditch Through The Ages" book and came across the 'Rules' for Quidditch. Rule # 5 states "In the case of injury, no substitution of players will take place. The team will play on without the injured player." I'm not sure if this rule only applied to players injured in the game or players not playing because of injuries. *S* >> So how come Slytherin got a bye because of Draco's "injury" in PoA? And why no Q coach or faculty member to each house team. M Hooch "teaches" flying, doesn't she. Excuse the short hand q's, but let's see what flies up this time. whirdy From catlady at wicca.net Sun Mar 31 05:59:42 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:59:42 -0000 Subject: Ancient Magic / Remus / a little Arthur / a lot of Snape8caiceiOld Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37204 Grey Wolf wrote: > _ancient_ magic implies that it was used a long time ago > (druids, anyone?) I've always had the impression that the 'ancient magic' is very much older than Druids. In LOTR terms, it would go back to the Second Age. Without LOTR terms, all I can say is "older than Atlantis", or "older than Australopithecus". Lila HP wrote: > Where was Remus during the time that Harry was with the Dursleys? > Why did he never attempt to contact him, or if he did, why did > Dumbledore not allow him to do so? Maybe Remus owled the Dursleys a few times, explaining who he was and asking to come visit little Harry, and the Dursleys tore up the letters and Remus, not realising that the Dursleys hated him for being magic, assumed that the Dursleys hated him for being a werewolf, so he sighed and moved his attention to problems of daily survival, like trying to find a job. Maybe Dumbledore had nothing to do with it (except he probably helped try to find Remus a job). > why didn't he tell Harry right up front who he was? Like, "I was in > a very tight group of friends at Hogwarts, which included your > father. Unfortunately, I'm the only one still around here. I'm so > sorry he's dead, come here and I'll tell you all about him and > your mom." Maybe Remus is so accustomed to being rejected by people who find out that he's a werewolf that he has become very reluctant to push himself on anyone (resulting in behavior that resembles being shy). Still, I don't know why he didn't mention it when he said "You heard James's voice?" That would have been a good time for him to add: "I knew your father when we were in school together. He was the greatest." Maybe he's afraid that if he mentioned knowing James, Harry would ask questions leading to finding out about Remus's lycanthropy. > kept them apart, even after Harry's first and second years at > Hogwarts, why? Maybe Remus was working outside the country at that time (as in the fanfic CALL OF THE WILD by Wolfie Twins). Mercia Meglet wrote: > However most of the other times when Lupin's lycanthropy is > described it is certainly implied if not stated directly that he > is dangerous throughout the period of the full moon and even after > the discovery of the potion transforms into a wolf for the period > whether or not he is bathed in moonlight. I presume when he is > curled up a 'harmless wolf' in his office during PoA he isn't doing > so always in the light of the moon. Even if there are no curtains > or shutters on the castle windows, believe me there are many cloudy > nights in the Scottish climate when the moon, whether full or not, > is well hidden. So is JKR being inconsistent here or am I missing > something about the nature of werwolves? Any thoughts? That is a much debated question. On the Lexicon's "mysteries and puzzles page", it is listed as "Why did Lupin transform into a werewolf only when the full moon came out from behind the clouds? Don't werewolves automatically change shape at the full moon, whether or not there are clouds? (snip) (JKR's partial answer: "The moon wasn't up when he entered the Shrieking Shack." (Sch2)) http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/index.html I am sure that the werewolf transforms into wolf form even when hidden from the light of the moon. I have always imagined that the transformation began at sunset or moonrise and stopped again at sunrise or moonset, and wondered whether it happens one, two, or three nights in a row, but there are indications that once transformed, the werewolf might stay transformed even in daylight until the wolf-time is over. Such as, Lupin missed class on Friday (Snape taught instead) during the daytime. But on Monday, "Professor Lupin was back at work. It certainly looked as though he had been ill." That implies that he was transformed during the day Friday. There's no clue if he remained transformed for 24, 48, or 72 hours. JKR's answer indicates that werewolf transformation occurs at moonrise. The description in the book doesn't mention how high above the horizon the moon was when the clouds moved away from it; it MIGHT have just risen and been low on the horizon. But I am under the impression that the time of that event did not agree with the time of moonrise of Full Moon in June in Scotland. So people have come up with theories that the transformation occurs at the moment identified by astronomers as the instant of Full Moon, which they compute down to the second, and can be at any time of day or night because it is the same for the whole earth. Personally, I prefer the theory that Lupin didn't transform until touched by moonlight because Snape had been experimenting with an improvement to Wolfsbane Potion, trying to make it prevent the physical transformation as well as the mental transformation, and had succeeded in preventing the physical transformation until the extra stimulus of being touched by the moonlight... > And if Arthur was indeed an auror it raises the question of what > he was thinking bringing his young son to work, It's not a problem on a purely paperwork day spent safely at Headquarters. Btw I think Bill and Charlie might have been in the SAME YEAR at Hogwarts, without being twins. It would work if Bill was the month right after the deadline for turning 11 to start Hogwarts (in September, if entering students are required to have turned 11 before or on September 1st) and Charlie was born 11 months later (the next August if Bill was born in September) (the same way my domestic partner Tim was born in August and his next brother Jim was born the next July). Then Bill would not have had to go off to school all alone with no one he knew, and it would make sense that they divided ambition between them, Bill concentrating on academics and becoming Head Boy (and on being popular and having friends and playing practical jokes, etc) and Charlie concentrating on sport and becoming Quidditch Captain and winning the Quidditch Cup. Eloise wrote: > PLEASE will someone explain to me about Dementors and hydrophobia? Porphyria already said that Cindy Sphynx mentioned this theory in post #33862. She seems to have introduced the idea that Dementors dissolve in water in post #31131 and the idea that Snape is half-Dementor in #28010. She signed off #30242 with "Cindy (ready to believe that Snape is half-dementor, which would explain quite a lot)" to which Pippin replied by signing off #30304 with "Pippin, not wanting to think about how one engenders a half-Dementor." Apparently the 'evidence' that Snape is half-Dementor is that both glide around in black robes and both drain all the happiness out of Harry and Neville. The 'evidence' that Dementors dissolved in water is Snape's greasey hair... Porphyria also wrote: > even though it runs counter to my Snape-is-sort-of-symbolically- > depressed argument. (snip) Snape is not an insomniac. He does not > *make a habit* of prowling the school late at night, I don't know whether Snape makes a habit of prowling the school late at night, but supposing that he does sleep soundly at night, that doesn't prove that he doesn't have insommnia: there are sleeping potions, even Draught of the Living Death. Judy Serenity wrote: > Frankly, I've been mystified by all the times Snape has been > described on this list "as prowling around after dark." (snip) > Judy [is] defending Snape as usual What's wrong with prowling around after dark? It is not an accusation that Snape must be defended from! ProfSnapeFan wrote: > I always figured that he got sucked in by Lucius and his other > slytherin pals and then realized how wrong it was, I think so, too (altho' in my universe, Lucius was just enough older that Severus didn't meet him until after Severus had left school and started advanced study of Potions). But other people suggest that he quite knowingly joined the Death Eaters on purpose, perhaps in a rage against Dumbledore for his favoritism of Gryffindors, in hope of acquiring enough power and wealth to be a chick magnet, because *they* *appreciated* him, because they provided opportunities for him to study things he was intellectually interested in (such as curses), or because he quite truly *enjoyed* Death Eater activities such as torturing people. If it was the latter, I don't understand how he could have come to know that it was wrong. To me, the only reasons for him to leave Voldemort's side when it appeared to be winning, and to spy against it at risk of being quite unpleasantly tortured to death if caught, would be either because he came to realise that it was wrong, or if he felt that he had been unforgiveably insulted by them, requiring him to revenge himself on them. I haven't been able to wrap my mind around the latter notion in any detail. From alina at distantplace.net Sun Mar 31 05:52:02 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:52:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Injured Quidditch Players References: <49.1af9ef2b.29d7fc32@aol.com> Message-ID: <001301c1d878$2ee7c1a0$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37205 Whirdy at aol.com asked: > So how come Slytherin got a bye because of Draco's "injury" in PoA? And why > no Q coach or faculty member to each house team. M Hooch "teaches" flying, > doesn't she. In case of the Slytherins using Draco's injury, I think it was Lucius Malfoy's work. It was still back when he had a lot of influence with the school and a quidditch match is too small of a matter for Dumbledore to interfere. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sun Mar 31 12:02:10 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:02:10 -0000 Subject: Sirius a "pureblood"? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37206 We know for certain that James was a "pureblood" (that is, he came from a wizard family), that Lily came from a muggle family, that Ron's family is pure wizards, etc. However, I'm pretty unsure of Sirius' origins. Are his family wizards, muggles or both? (Please give as much canon as possible). To start you out, the only canon I could recall on the matter is Harry's letter to Siruius at the start of GoF, in which he explains: (liberal translation) "[...] Dursley threw his console out of the window. It's a sort of computer you can play games on" (end of ch. 2, GoF) (as always, I'd be grateful if someone could find me the correct quote). The first time I read that, I though Sirius had to be from a wizard family, or wouldn't have needed explaining. However, I'm not so sure about that anymore. First off, Harry explains the videoconsole by using an analogy to a computer, which a wizard wouldn't know either, so Sirius would have to be from a muggle family (or at least have lived in the muggle world quite a bit). But then, if he knows about computers, why doesn't he know about videogames? The answer hit me the other day: Sirius has been out of contact with the muggle world 20 years (since he started Hogwats), and out of contact with the rest of the world for 13 years (since he was thrown into Azkaban). This means that, when he was a child (10 years old or so), he could have heard about computers, but the first consoles didn't start to appear until 1985-1986 (at the very least, I think). By then, he had already been thrown into prison, so he wouldn't have known about it. In conclussion, that little piece of canon seems to point towards a Sirius from muggle family, but it is pretty circumstancial at any rate, so please post your own evidence. Hope that helps (my canon, that is) Grey Wolf From neilward at dircon.co.uk Sun Mar 31 12:25:32 2002 From: neilward at dircon.co.uk (Neil Ward) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:25:32 +0100 Subject: ADMIN: Virus alert Message-ID: <009601c1d8af$277f11c0$da3570c2@c5s910j> No: HPFGUIDX 37207 Dear HPfGU members, It seems that one of our members has been infected with the PE_Magistr.B virus (and associated Trojan), and that this has passed itself on to an number of addresses from the member's address file. There may be a message, which refers to a story about "Gannon," and a typical header is: "It was hard not to think." Various attachments have been reported, which should not be opened. Most good virus protection software should deal with the virus, but if you have become infected, you should make sure you clean up your system to protect your files and avoid further spread. Details and instructions for removal here: http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.magistr.39921 at mm .html If you have any questions, please contact us at: hpforgrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com Neil for the HPfGU Moderator Team From aiz24 at hotmail.com Sun Mar 31 12:59:55 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 07:59:55 -0500 Subject: House-elves - SB's/RL's regret - Blowing up the house - Quidditch Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37208 Pippin wrote: >What is topsy turvy about the Potterverse is that the Elves regard freedom >as a social disgrace. That, I think, is unknown in human society. Slaves >are always lowest on the social totem pole. That argues that Elf psychology >is significantly different from that of human beings. Pippin, aren't you the person who suggested the parallel to housewives once long ago? I find Elf psychology very familiar: it reminds me of women in the days when marrying stripped women of their few rights (they lost their property, their bodies became property of their husbands so that "marital rape" was an oxymoron, etc. etc.) yet remaining unmarried, or being deserted by one's husband, was shameful. Fortunate women had just and kind husbands. If your husband was cruel you were out of luck--but you would still be ashamed, not to mention financially devastated and homeless, if your husband left you. Why was being single ("free" in the Elf parallel) shameful, then? Good question--but it was. lilahp wrote: >After all, Sirius, while indeed the godfather, is always beating himself up >about not being around for Harry. >Remus consoles Sirius that Sirius couldn't have done anything different for >Harry, since he was in prison Could you give some chapters or pages? This isn't ringing a bell. I see some regret in Sirius in the "consider it thirteen birthdays' worth of presents from your godfather" (22), but that's pretty mild. (Once again, JKR proves that she can't do math. He missed twelve birthdays. Or is he saying "I bought you the damn Firebolt so I certainly hope you're not expecting anything for your fourteenth birthday!"?) Anna wrote: >Which is a good enough explanation for the party, but >it's also possible that they think the house *will* >get blown up. Petunia knows a little bit about magic, >and you know what they say about a little knowledge. >She's awfully skittish.... Maybe she has reason to be? Yes, she certainly does: her sister's house got blown up (4). When Harry says "I won't blow up the house" (2) he's just using an expression; Petunia, on the other hand, thinks "Sure you won't. Your parents managed to blow themselves up with that magic of theirs." Kendra wrote: >Rule # 5 states "In the case of injury, no substitution of players will >take place. The team will play on without the injured player." >I'm not sure if this rule only applied to players injured in the game or >players not playing because of injuries. *S* It's got to mean players injured in the game. Otherwise the rule would be that a Quidditch team can have only, and exactly, seven players: no second string allowed. Rule 5 suggests that one *can* have a second string but that the original squad must play the entire game without substitutions. (What an insane rule.) We never hear about any reserves either, but Harry alludes to their not having a reserve Seeker in PS/SS 13, which to me strongly suggests that they have other reserve players and that it's the Law of Conservation of Extraneous Detail that keeps JKR from telling us all about the other players at practices. But we do know that they play in the final game of PS/SS without him (17). Maybe they put in any old reserve who, poor thing, had to be Seeker even though he/she's really a better Beater. They also could have fielded a six-person team (no rule against that) but of course someone would have had to have a go at the Snitch or else they couldn't possibly win. Amy Z ------------------------------------ "Yeah, Dumbledore's barking, all right," said Ron proudly. -HP and the Philosopher's Stone ------------------------------------ _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sun Mar 31 13:51:57 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:51:57 -0000 Subject: House-elves - SB's/RL's regret - Blowing up the house - Quidditch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37209 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > Pippin wrote: > We never hear about any reserves either, but Harry alludes to their not > having a reserve Seeker in PS/SS 13, which to me strongly suggests that they > have other reserve players and that it's the Law of Conservation of > Extraneous Detail that keeps JKR from telling us all about the other players > at practices. In GoF, we find out that Oliver Wood made the reserve team for Puddlemere United after Hogwarts. If professional teams have reserve players, it makes sense that school teams would, too. Also, in PoA, when Gryffindor is getting ready to play Ravenclaw, Wood tells the team that he's surprised to find Cho is playing seeker for Ravenclaw, because she's had "problems with injuries in the past." That implies that Ravenclaw has a reserve seeker who plays when Cho is hurt. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From Edblanning at aol.com Sun Mar 31 14:47:19 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 09:47:19 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's oily hair, depression, insomnia Message-ID: <82.1974f021.29d87b77@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37210 Porphyria: > Snape is not an insomniac. He does not *make a habit* of prowling the > school late at night, if by late at night you mean after the time at > which you would expect a grown man to go to bed. I've been combing the > canon for an essay I'm writing and I can back this claim up. If anyone > would like to dispute me on this I will post a very LOONy list of > Snape-encounters with notes on the time of day. :-) If there *is* a > professor who is afflicted with insomnia, that honor would have to go to > McGonagall (maybe she's the real vampire! <*cough*>). > I'm really disappointed now. You've completely destroyed the premise of my very first FILK. Never mind, I put LOLLIPOPS into that and I don't believe in that either. I quite believe you. But it's interesting that that's the impression we (well, the less attentive of us) tend to get, isn't it? And he really *ought* to be an insomniac with all the stuff he's got inside his head. How can he be tortured and angst-ridden and in mourning etc and *not* insomniac? Of course, maybe he is, in the confines of his dungeon, we don't know that. If he *can* sleep, I want to know why! (Boring answer, sleeping potion; worrying answer, a lack of conscience). I enjoyed the rest of your post, BTW. Eloise (refusing to rise to the teeth comment!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ritadarling at ivillage.com Sun Mar 31 13:23:55 2002 From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (ritadear2) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:23:55 -0000 Subject: Snape as "half dead" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37211 This isn't in response to any particular post, but to the theories that someone can be "half vampire" or "half dementor". From my understanding, vampires and dementors are not living things. Vampires are dead, no? How could one be partially dead? Could a dead thing mate and cause life within another to make a half dead child? I don't see how this is possible. Same with the dementor concept. If someone could explain this, please do! Rita From alina at distantplace.net Sun Mar 31 13:46:00 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 08:46:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius a "pureblood"? References: Message-ID: <001a01c1d8ba$659ba3a0$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37212 ----- Original Message ----- From: grey_wolf_c >Dursley threw his console out of the >window. It's a sort of computer you can play games on" (end of ch. 2, >GoF) (as always, I'd be grateful if someone could find me the correct >quote). "... and chucked his PlayStation out of the window. That's a sort of computer thing you can play games on." I both agree with your line of reasoning that Sirius knowing about computers but not PlayStations would indicate he's muggle-born and have a counterargument for it. I agree because I am rather certain that J.K. Rowling wouldn't have put "computer" in accidently, I've seen an interview with her recently and she has got detailed notes on every character and has absolutely every detail written down and is just not the kind of author to make such mistakes. My counter-arguments are: 1) Harry might have forgotten that Sirius doesn't know about computers. Kids that age and of that generation often take things like computers, VCRs and other technology for granted. He's only been in the magical world for 3 years when he wrote that letter, so he could've forgotten that Sirius doesn't know about computers. 2) If Sirius was muggle-born people wouldn't be so eager to believe he was a traitor. After all, it's highly doubtful that Voldemort would do business with "mudbloods" even to benefit his cause. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Mar 31 15:08:04 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:08:04 -0000 Subject: Substitue Quidditch Players (was Re: House-elves - SB's/RL's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37213 > > Kendra wrote: > > >Rule # 5 states "In the case of injury, no substitution of players will > >take place. The team will play on without the injured player." > > >I'm not sure if this rule only applied to players injured in the game or > >players not playing because of injuries. *S* Amy wrote: > It's got to mean players injured in the game. Otherwise the rule would be > that a Quidditch team can have only, and exactly, seven players: no second > string allowed. Rule 5 suggests that one *can* have a second string but > that the original squad must play the entire game without substitutions. > (What an insane rule.) > > We never hear about any reserves either, but Harry alludes to their not > having a reserve Seeker in PS/SS 13, which to me strongly suggests that they > have other reserve players and that it's the Law of Conservation of > Extraneous Detail that keeps JKR from telling us all about the other players > at practices. > > But we do know that they play in the final game of PS/SS without him (17). > Maybe they put in any old reserve who, poor thing, had to be Seeker even > though he/she's really a better Beater. They also could have fielded a > six-person team (no rule against that) but of course someone would have had > to have a go at the Snitch or else they couldn't possibly win. > I don't have QTA, so I can't comment on the rules themselves, but isn't it mentioned somewhere in the books (haven't got them here, so can't check) that when there was a very long Quidditch game, they had to keep substituting players? (I seem to remember something about five months.) That would suggest that it is possible, at least in some cases, to substitute playes, and it certainly means that there are reserve players. Naama From monika at darwin.inka.de Sun Mar 31 15:23:11 2002 From: monika at darwin.inka.de (Monika Huebner) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:23:11 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius a "pureblood"? - SB's/RL's regret In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37214 Grey Wolf wrote: > We know for certain that James was a "pureblood" (that is, he came from > a wizard family), that Lily came from a muggle family, that Ron's > family is pure wizards, etc. However, I'm pretty unsure of Sirius' > origins. Are his family wizards, muggles or both? (Please give as much > canon as possible). Well, I'm afraid we can't give you any canon there, because there is no canon. We don't know anything about Sirius' family background, and believe me, if there were the slightest hint to it, I would have noticed. ;) > To start you out, the only canon I could recall on the matter is > Harry's letter to Siruius at the start of GoF, in which he explains: > (liberal translation) "[...] Dursley threw his console out of the > window. It's a sort of computer you can play games on" (end of ch. 2, > GoF) (as always, I'd be grateful if someone could find me the correct > quote). The quote is almost correct: "That's a sort of computer thing you can play games on." > The first time I read that, I though Sirius had to be from a wizard > family, or wouldn't have needed explaining. However, I'm not so sure > about that anymore. First off, Harry explains the videoconsole by using > an analogy to a computer, which a wizard wouldn't know either, so > Sirius would have to be from a muggle family Interesting idea, I haven't thought of the fact that he wouldn't know about computers, either, so the analogy would be lost on him. A while ago, I have speculated a bit about Sirius' origins with a fellow Sirius fan, and I came to the conclusion that he could be at least half Muggle, because he was able to survive in the woods without his wand. He must be able to light a fire somehow, and we know from GoF that pureblood wizards are a bit lost with things like matches. > Sirius has been out of contact with the muggle world 20 years (since he > started Hogwats), and out of contact with the rest of the world for 13 > years (since he was thrown into Azkaban). This means that, when he was > a child (10 years old or so), he could have heard about computers, but > the first consoles didn't start to appear until 1985-1986 (at the very > least, I think). By then, he had already been thrown into prison, so he > wouldn't have known about it. Sounds reasonable to me. When he was a child, there were no computers. I think he must have been born around the same year as I was, and there were certainly no such things when I was a little girl. And then he lost contact with both the Muggle and the wizarding world because he was in prison. But there isn't anything in canon that really mentions his family. lilahp wrote: >After all, Sirius, while indeed the godfather, is always beating himself up >about not being around for Harry. >Remus consoles Sirius that Sirius couldn't have done anything different for >Harry, since he was in prison I think you are mixing up canon and fanfiction here. Sirius and Remus haven't had any time yet to talk, they only meet once in canon, in the Shrieking Shack. And we all know that nothing like that is said there. We know they spend the summer after GoF together, but since Book 5 isn't out yet, we don't know what happens during this time, or if we will get any S/R interaction at all. Monika who would *really* like to read JKR's notes on Sirius' childhood... -- Book and movie reviews in English and German: http://sites.inka.de/darwin/ Harry Potter fanfiction in German: http://sites.inka.de/darwin/fanfic From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sun Mar 31 15:28:26 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:28:26 -0000 Subject: Sirius a "pureblood"? In-Reply-To: <001a01c1d8ba$659ba3a0$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37215 I translated: > "Dursley threw his console out of the window. It's a sort of computer > you can play games on" The original is: > "... and chucked his PlayStation out of the window. That's a sort of > computer thing you can play games on." Ummm... That was close. I must be getting better at this! Alina wrote: > My counter-arguments are: > 1) Harry might have forgotten that Sirius doesn't know about computers. Kids that age and of that generation often take things like computers, VCRs and other technology for granted. He's only been in the magical world for 3 years when he wrote that letter, so he could've forgotten that Sirius doesn't know about computers. << I'm mildly offended. I'm from that generation (I was born in 1981), and have always been very considerate about what other people know and don't know. Then again, I don't particularly find myself as an example of my generation (for example, I read books, the idea of which my generation finds not just boring but offensive), so there's not much thing I can do to counter that one. Alina again: > 2) If Sirius was muggle-born people wouldn't be so eager to believe he was a traitor. After all, it's highly doubtful that Voldemort would do business with "mudbloods" even to benefit his cause. > > Alina of Distant Place That's always the particular thing about evil overlords: they don't have to make sense. Voldy was a half-blood by his own words, so I don't think he would be that opposed to using mud-bloods if it furthered his objectives. I know it's against the rules mentioning him, but Hitler wasn't a tall, blue-eyed blonde, nor many of his spies. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From landers at email.unc.edu Sun Mar 31 16:51:22 2002 From: landers at email.unc.edu (Betty Landers) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 11:51:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House-elves - SB's/RL's regret - Blowing up the house - Quidditch References: Message-ID: <002a01c1d8d4$4ab00300$0333323f@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 37216 snip Marinafrants: > In GoF, we find out that Oliver Wood made the reserve team for > Puddlemere United after Hogwarts. If professional teams have > reserve players, it makes sense that school teams would, too. > > Also, in PoA, when Gryffindor is getting ready to play Ravenclaw, > Wood tells the team that he's surprised to find Cho is playing > seeker for Ravenclaw, because she's had "problems with injuries in > the past." That implies that Ravenclaw has a reserve seeker who > plays when Cho is hurt. this was mentioned a couple days ago, but I think it must have gotten lost in the shuffle. It's more than implied that Gryffindor has some reserves. In SS 11, Lee Jordan, while commentating, describes Alicia Spinnet as "a good friend of Oliver Wood's--last year only a reserve". Perhaps the question is *why* isn't there a reserve Seeker? Surely they could find someone in Gryffindor house who could play the roll when Harry couldn't and do it adequately. Betty, who is evidence that people of digest are less likely to post than people who are on individual mail. From graceofmyheart at hotmail.com Sun Mar 31 16:54:13 2002 From: graceofmyheart at hotmail.com (flower_fairy12) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 16:54:13 -0000 Subject: Sirius a "pureblood"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37217 I had always just assumed that Sirius was from a pureblood family, because he doesn't act like he would come from a muggle one, because he knows so much. Well, obviously Harry doesn't know because he has never been told, he still explained what a PlayStation was and Sirius could have known full well what one was (maybe the dementors liked to play on one in their spare time. It could happen!!!) Or, even if he doesn't it is most likely that he is half-blood. It would add a balance. Rosie From Zarleycat at aol.com Sun Mar 31 17:30:14 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:30:14 -0000 Subject: Sirius a "pureblood"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37218 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Monika Huebner" wrote: > Interesting idea, I haven't thought of the fact that he wouldn't know > about computers, either, so the analogy would be lost on him. A > while ago, I have speculated a bit about Sirius' origins with a fellow > Sirius fan, and I came to the conclusion that he could be at least > half Muggle, because he was able to survive in the woods without > his wand. He must be able to light a fire somehow, and we know from > GoF that pureblood wizards are a bit lost with things like matches. On the other hand, Sirius could be a pureblood who had been at the top of his class in Muggle Studies, and so, might be well acquainted with things like matches. Or, his survival in the wild may be attributed to his ability to transform into the dog, regardless of pure, mixed or Muggle parentage. Then, there is that motorcycle. I don't think that giving a gasoline- powered, internal combustion engine vehicle the ability to fly is simply a matter of waving one's wand and saying a spell. I have no canon evidence of this. It just seems to me that if this was easily done, a lot of people would be trying it, and the Ministry would never be able to stop it. To my thinking, the magic involved in this would be something that builds on knowledge of how these Muggle engines work. Maybe Hogwarts' Advanced Muggle Studies has an auto shop component to it, and again, Sirius the smart pureblood puts this knowledge to work. Or maybe Dad Black is/was a muggle who owned an auto repair shop and young Sirius had fun tinkering with bits of engines, crank shafts, master cylinders, etc. and figured things out on his own. > Monika > who would *really* like to read JKR's notes on Sirius' childhood... Maybe we can beg, plead or otherwise grovel to JKR, once she finishes the series, to publish some sort of Potterverse encyclopedia that would answer all of these questions... Marianne From kendra_grant at fantasysales.net Sun Mar 31 14:50:44 2002 From: kendra_grant at fantasysales.net (Kendra Grant-Bingham) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 09:50:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape, Dumbledore and more......... In-Reply-To: <1017582754.3287.79699.m9@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020331094931.00a68190@mail.fantasysales.net> No: HPFGUIDX 37219 >~~~~~Uncmark wrote~~~~~ >There is talk of wizarding cures for acne and Eloise Midgen >accidentally cursed her nose off. and Gilderoy Lockheart slept in >curlers and talked about making a line of hair acre products. >It would be a good topic for discussion. Would you use a spell >instead of buying makeup? Would there be sufficient motivation >(profit) to get skilled wizards making instant beauty spells?~~~~~ > In my world.....the world of the Kitchen Witch *S*, we have what is called a "Glam Spell" You use it NOT to actually make yourself look different, but to make OTHERS see you differently! Using this Glam Spell, you can make your blue eyes appear green or the bags under your eyes seem to disappear. You can make your mousy brown hair seem to be vibrantly auburn, or your saddlebag hips to appear leaner. What I'm attempting to say is, you are not actually altering your appearance (although there is an actual morphing type spell) but you are radiating magic that alters other peoples' vision of you...........kind of like putting vaseline on a camera lens to soften pictures.*S* I know I haven't explained this very well, but, HEY, it's early here! *LOL* > > >~~~~~Marina wrote~~~~~ >Good question. I have this theory that doing magic burns up a lot >of calories, which is why we don't see many fat witches or wizards >around, but of course calorie burning is not enough. ~~~~~ Obviously you don't know many witches! *LMAO* There are actually many (I hate the word FAT......... let us say instead) "pleasantly plump" witches and wizards around. And we, too, wish there was a magical spell to just "zap" that extra poundage away! *S* >~~~~~Olly wrote~~~~~ >Maybe this is the thing with Snape, he works with potions all day in a >dungeon that possibly has no real ventilation to speak of so maybe thats >what causes it and not a lack of caring or anything like that, it's a >failing of the job.~~~~~ > This is a fantastic suggestion! I like it! *S* >~~~~~Steph (?) wrote~~~~~ >Did he join Voldemort straight after leaving Hogwarts or did he complete >some sort of >Potions degree?"~~~~~ > Something just popped into my head as I read this.........do you think he joined Voldemort's team because of the trick that Sirius pulled on him.....the one that James saved him from? Maybe he joined to learn more about the dark arts, so that he could "get back" at the foursome. And,>maybe, after he got into the dark arts and became more aware of just how >terrible it was, he decided it wasn't for him and he wanted no more of it. But, because of Voldemort's hold on him, the "dark mark", he knew he'd have to go somewhere safe, some place where Voldemort had no power. I think there is some sort of magical power inside Hogwarts that prevents Voldemort from using any kind of dark magic there. Whether it was put into place hundreds of years ago when the school was first built or just after Voldemort came into power I don't know, but I feel that it is there. So, Snape goes to Dumbledore, confesses everything, and is taken in. And now I have a question of my own..........How did Dumbledore become the Headmaster and when did it come about? The whole timeline thing here has me confused. I know that Dumbledore has to be ancient, but how old was he when he was a teacher in Hogwarts, when Tom was just a lad? And how old was he when Snape and that entire generation were in Hogwarts? I guess I'd better re-read the books again and see if I can figure some more of this out.*LOL* --- Kendra Grant-Bingham ~~~~~Phoenix Moonshadow Wych~~~~~ "Gryffindor House ...where Friendship and Bravery count." From kendra_grant at fantasysales.net Sun Mar 31 15:22:25 2002 From: kendra_grant at fantasysales.net (Kendra Grant-Bingham) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:22:25 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] ancient magic In-Reply-To: <1017582754.3287.79699.m9@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20020331102209.00a6b610@mail.fantasysales.net> No: HPFGUIDX 37220 >~~~~~Grey Wolf wrote:~~~~~ >_ancient_ magic implies that it was used a long time ago (druids, >anyone?)~~~~~ > If you want to get technical, magic goes back to the "First People". Magic has been around as long as intelligent people. (although intelligence can have many many definitions *S*) If we are to believe any of the pre-history theories out there, then we have to know that there were Shaman and "magic men and women" and all manner of "witchdoctor" types from the time men could speak and understand each other. In my opinion, (well, it's not totally how I see things, but partially so) men began to believe in magic when there was something they could not explain, so it became "Magic" or "the will of the gods". With evolution came more knowledge, and with knowledge (of the scientific kind) magic was poo-pooed and pushed to the "back of the bus" so to speak. But, there are still some of us who believe that magic exists, and there are some of us who have not only witnessed magic but performed it.*S* Some magic IS alchemic but there are still things out there that defy explaination, scientific or otherwise. --- Kendra Grant-Bingham ~~~~~Phoenix Moonshadow Wych~~~~~ "Gryffindor House ...where Friendship and Bravery count." [Mod note: Could any responses to this be moved either to OT-Chatter or offlist unless the context is shifted back to Harry Potter canon. Thank you.] From chynarose8 at hotmail.com Sun Mar 31 16:17:13 2002 From: chynarose8 at hotmail.com (abigail_draconi) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 16:17:13 -0000 Subject: Wizards and Practicality Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37221 I am not sure if this particular subject has been brought up before, but I recently ran into a nagging question as I was trying to write the next chapter in a fanfic. I had wanted to express the idea of magical space accommodation when compared to the overall practicality of the wizarding world at large, when I hit a small bump. I have no idea how practical or impractical the wizarding world in general is. Does anyone have any idea about this? @---<-- Chyna Rose From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sun Mar 31 18:26:45 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:26:45 -0000 Subject: Magic calorie-burning In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20020331094931.00a68190@mail.fantasysales.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37222 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kendra Grant-Bingham wrote: > >~~~~~Marina wrote~~~~~ > >Good question. I have this theory that doing magic burns up a lot > >of calories, which is why we don't see many fat witches or wizards > >around, but of course calorie burning is not enough. ~~~~~ > > Obviously you don't know many witches! *LMAO* There are actually many (I > hate the word FAT......... let us say instead) "pleasantly plump" witches > and wizards around. And we, too, wish there was a magical spell to just > "zap" that extra poundage away! *S* I was talking about magic in the Potterverse, not magic in the real world. I know quite a few witches in RL -- enough to know that they have exercise to keep their weight down just as we regular shmucks do. :-) In the books, however, there are very few overweight wizards or witches. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Neville. Now, just thinking about it logically, it seems to me that if you wave a wand, say a couple of words, and out pops a fireball (or a bunch of roses, or a French poodle) -- well, the energy has to come from somewhere, doesn't it? And the most obvious answer is that it comes from inside the wizard who's doing the spell. So I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that calories are burned in the process. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Mar 31 18:27:04 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:27:04 -0000 Subject: Snape as "half dead" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37223 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ritadear2" wrote: From my understanding, vampires and dementors are not living things. Vampires are dead, no? No, not necessarily. There are many different beliefs about vampires. In some European folklore, the vampire was a spirit that could take material form for brief periods, long enough to mate with a human, for example. Pippin From porphyria at mindspring.com Sun Mar 31 22:21:54 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:21:54 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Sirius a pureblood? / Snape & insomnia In-Reply-To: <82.1974f021.29d87b77@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37224 Grey Wolf asked: > However, I'm pretty unsure of Sirius' > origins. Are his family wizards, muggles or both? (Please give as much > canon as possible). > > To start you out, the only canon I could recall on the matter is > Harry's letter to Siruius at the start of GoF, in which he explains: > (liberal translation) "[...] Dursley threw his console out of the > window. It's a sort of computer you can play games on" (end of ch. 2, > GoF) (as always, I'd be grateful if someone could find me the correct > quote). Harry might not have any idea whether or not Sirius is pureblood or muggle-born, so his reply might be trying to account for either case. Sirius did write him a couple of letters at that point, but we don't know what he said. Furthermore, unless I'm vastly mistaken they *did* have computers way before the 80s, they just didn't have *personal computers.* Didn't IBM have giant reel-to-reel punch card readers in the 60s? It's quite possible Sirius is at least familiar with the term 'computer' and can extrapolate from there. I think Sirius is a pureblood. I'd argue that Sirius acts like a wizard. He's got that wizarding pride and ethic. Here I'd refer again to Elkins' post #34421 on the Warrior Ethos or Eileen's post #36811 on Livian Rome (which can be applied here, although it was about the Longbottoms) and the posts on real wizards not apologizing. Wizards are proud and vengeful; they want to avenge the deaths of their loved ones personally -- even Draco espouses this sentiment. When Sirius escapes from Azkaban his decision to go after Peter is both honor-bound and self-sacrificial. On the one hand he does want revenge on behalf of his friends; his willingness to kill Peter in the shack is do-it-yourself justice, he considers it his duty to rid the world of the vermin that killed the Potters. Remus' willingness to go along with this makes me think he's pureblood too. When Sirius relents and defers to Harry to make the decision, it goes right along with this mindset; since it was Harry's parents who died (and merely Sirius' and Remus' friends) the honor or killing or sparing Peter belongs to Harry (and not, as a muggle might think, the "Law" or the MoM). At the same time, Sirius is willing to sacrifice the best evidence of his own innocence in favor of this righteous killing; it would be much easier to prove what really happened if Peter were hauled in alive, but Sirius doesn't care about that at all, he's much too proud to worry about getting himself cleared. Vengeance is far more honorable. More evidence of this is Sirius' attitude of death before betrayal; he'd die for the Potters and he expects Peter to have made the same choice. I think that Harry's merciful perspective shows his muggle upbringing (even if the Dursley's don't share it), and Dumbledore's support of him is Dumbledore being his usual iconoclastic self. Of course you could also argue that Sirius has simply internalized the values of the wizarding world, and none of this really proves he isn't half-blood. But I think he's 'virtually' all wizard. ----- OK, onto that crucial question of Snape and insomnia. I argued that Snape does not wander around in the middle of the night and poor Eloise lamented: > I'm really disappointed now. You've completely destroyed the premise of > my > very first FILK. Oh, I loved your FILK and I am so sorry if my remarks came across in any way as a criticism of it. I'm missing the write-a-filk gene, and I'm always astounded at the cleverness of every FILK writer on this list. Your FILK still accurately reflects a common belief: > But it's interesting that that's the > impression we (well, the less attentive of us) tend to get, isn't it? Yeah, it's a total *meme*, not just here but on many other HP/Snape lists, message boards and groups I've lurked on. I've read innumerable comments to this effect. > And he > really *ought* to be an insomniac with all the stuff he's got inside his > head. How can he be tortured and angst-ridden and in mourning etc and > *not* > insomniac? Of course, maybe he is, in the confines of his dungeon, we > don't > know that. If he *can* sleep, I want to know why! (Boring answer, > sleeping > potion; worrying answer, a lack of conscience). In defense of Catlady, who said: > I don't know whether Snape makes a habit of prowling the school late > at night, but supposing that he does sleep soundly at night, that > doesn't prove that he doesn't have insommnia: there are sleeping > potions, even Draught of the Living Death. I'd say that it's more logical than it is boring that the Potions Master might knock back a potion when he needs one. :-) If that's the case, I hope he's sticking to Dreamless Sleep potion; the Living Death one sounds scary. My own personal interpretation of the Egg and the Eye scene is that normally at one in the morning Snape expects to be asleep, and that (at least on this particular night) he hadn't taken any sort of sleep-aid since he was able to wake up and be perfectly alert when he heard a loud noise. So I don't see any evidence of imsomnia, which doesn't prove he doesn't have it, but... Remember that insomnia is one possible symptom of depression, guilt, angst and anxiety, but these things can also cause exhaustion and a need to sleep 10-12 hours a day. So if I were to project my own personal experience of depression on Snape (and where's the fun in life if I can't?) then I'd say he desperately needs his beauty sleep because he's so worn out from beating himself up all the time. And he needs several cups of Java-Jinni to get himself going every morning (hence the irritability). There now. With the lack of further evidence, we can all chose our favorite symptom and self-medication and be happy with our interpretation. And trust me Eloise, he is guilt-ridden. :-) Last but not least, thank you Judy for backing me up! You've done all my work for me! You are totally right that most of the time Snape catches Harry doing something it's during the day, and if Snape is up late guarding students from some threat (like in CoS) it's more or less against his will. (In CoS when Ron and Harry sneak past him he sneezes, poor dear, so I don't think the late hour agrees with him.) The only instance I was waiting for someone to bring up was the one in PS/SS where Harry is poking around the Restricted Section of the Library after dark. This, however, probably isn't really late at night. Harry and Ron went to bed early and Ron went to sleep right away because he was still metabolizing his huge Christmas Tea. Harry the got back up immediately and headed for the Library. This could easily have occurred around 9pm-11pm; not really that late. Even then it wasn't Snape who found him, it was Filch, and Filch had to fetch Snape, who was presumably in his office. Snape does prowl around a lot, but I think he leaves the night shift for Filch. ~~Porphyria, very glad Eloise is ignoring her execrable tooth remark Happy Easter for everyone who is celebrating. Being an agnostic, I will be observing Mediocre Housecleaning Day. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ChaserChick at hotmail.com Sun Mar 31 19:26:22 2002 From: ChaserChick at hotmail.com (Liz Sager) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:26:22 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius a "pureblood"? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37225 Grey Wolf wrote: SNIP video games and whys Sirius wouldn't understand >In conclussion, that little piece of canon seems to point towards a >Sirius from muggle family, but it is pretty circumstancial at any rate, >so please post your own evidence. Another matter is that motorcycle. I have figured Sirius to be muggle-born or half-blood, simply because of the motorcycle that he enchanted to fly. Or perhaps Lily introduced it to him. On the same token, I have figured Remus to be a pureblood or at least half-blood, because in the chapter "Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs" in PoA, he tells the trio that his parents did a lot of searching for a cure after he was bitten, of which there was none. Muggles would be out of it, certainly. ;) Happy Easter/Sunday! Liz (who has eaten too much chocolate and its only 1:27 PM) _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From catlady at wicca.net Sun Mar 31 20:39:13 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:39:13 -0000 Subject: Q reserve players / insomnia / half-dead / Dumbledore's age / Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37226 Amy Z wrote: > Rule 5 suggests that one *can* have a second string but that the > original squad must play the entire game without substitutions. Or, as Naama said, that there can be substitutions during the match, but only if the removed player isn't too injured to play. Bringing in players whose ability or style is expected to be more useful against what the other team turns out to be doing springs to mind. Also, I think it was Ron who said something about a match that lasted four months and they had to bring in substitutes so the players could get some sleep. Betty Landers wrote: > Perhaps the question is *why* isn't there a reserve Seeker? Surely > they could find someone in Gryffindor house who could play the role > when Harry couldn't and do it adequately. I imagine that McGonagall wouldn't have been able to get Harry a dispensation to be on the House team and own a broomstick at school IF Gryffindor had had ANYONE older than first-year who could play Seeker in a more adequate way than just sitting there on a broomstick and trying to stay out of the way of Bludgers and the other players. Porphyria wrote: > Remember that insomnia is one possible symptom of depression, > guilt, angst and anxiety, but these things can also cause > exhaustion and a need to sleep 10-12 hours a day. So if I were to > project my own personal experience of depression on Snape (and > where's the fun in life if I can't?) then I'd say he desperately > needs his beauty sleep because he's so worn out from beating > himself up all the time. And he needs several cups of Java-Jinni > to get himself going every morning (hence the irritability). Thank you. Yesterday I wanted to say something like that, but I couldn't think of a way to explain it clearly, as you have done. Rita Dear (to distinguish her from me, Rita Irascible) wrote: > Vampires are dead, no? How could one be partially dead? Could a > dead thing mate and cause life within another to make a half dead > child? I don't see how this is possible. Same with the dementor > concept. Pippin mentioned mythoi in which vampires are not dead. In addition, there are theories in which a person can be half-vampire because hiser mother was bitten while pregnant with him. There is a post SOMEWHERE in the archive that suggests that Snape is half-Dementor because his mother was Kissed when pregnant with him. (I don' t think that Snape is half-Dementor, half-vampire, nor full vampire.) Kendra Grant-Bingham wrote: > The whole timeline thing here has me confused. I know that > Dumbledore has to be ancient, but how old was he when he was a > teacher in Hogwarts, when Tom was just a lad? And how old was he > when Snape and that entire generation were in Hogwarts? JKR said in an interview that Dumbledore "is" 150 years old, so he must have been 100 during the CoS flashback to fifty years ago. I think James and Lily were 21 or 22 when Harry was born, so subtract 21 or 22 years from his current age to find his age in their school days. From zoehooch at yahoo.com Sun Mar 31 20:49:38 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:49:38 -0000 Subject: Magic calorie-burning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37227 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > do. :-) In the books, however, there are very few overweight > wizards or witches. The only one I can think of off the top of my > head is Neville. Mrs. Weasley isn't particularly thin. Nor is Professor Sprout. As one who prefers not to fantastize too much when developing a theory, I suspect that the wizard population probably has a similar range of weight to the British population. Zoe Hooch From Ali at zymurgy.org Sun Mar 31 21:01:51 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:01:51 -0000 Subject: Sirius a "pureblood"? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37228 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" wrote: > Then, there is that motorcycle. I don't think that giving a gasoline- > powered, internal combustion engine vehicle the ability to fly is > simply a matter of waving one's wand and saying a spell. I have no > canon evidence of this. It just seems to me that if this was easily > done, a lot of people would be trying it, and the Ministry would > never be able to stop it. > > To my thinking, the magic involved in this would be something that > builds on knowledge of how these Muggle engines work. Maybe > Hogwarts' Advanced Muggle Studies has an auto shop component to it, > and again, Sirius the smart pureblood puts this knowledge to work. > Or maybe Dad Black is/was a muggle who owned an auto repair shop and > young Sirius had fun tinkering with bits of engines, crank shafts, > master cylinders, etc. and figured things out on his own. On the other hand Arthur Weasley had a flying car - and we know that he is a pure blood wizard. He had simply adapted the car. Why couldn't Sirius have done the same? We know that he and James were the most talented students of their year. Also, the MOM itself has cars. They take Harry et al to Kings Cross station at the beginning of POA. These cars have magical qualities about them. I also think that Sirius must be fairly wealthy - he can afford to buy Harry a firebolt - so perhaps, he can afford to buy a flying motorbike that somebody else has "adapted". I've always imagined Sirius Black to be a very bright, well-off pureblood Wizard - just like is friend James Potter. Although, I admit I can't support that belief with canon evidence. Ali (who noting another posting about teeth: is British, but has very straight teeth without fillings which is relatively unusual for a 33 year old - but now she comes to thinks about it, perhaps they are a little yellow!) From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Mar 31 21:12:04 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:12:04 -0000 Subject: House-elves - SB's/RL's regret - Blowing up the house - Quidditch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37229 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > Pippin wrote: > > >What is topsy turvy about the Potterverse is that the Elves regard freedom > >as a social disgrace. That, I think, is unknown in human society. Slaves > >are always lowest on the social totem pole. That argues that Elf psychology > >is significantly different from that of human beings. > > Pippin, aren't you the person who suggested the parallel to housewives once long ago? Yep, that was me. > > I find Elf psychology very familiar: it reminds me of women in the days when marrying stripped women of their few rights yet remaining unmarried, or being deserted by one's > husband, was shameful. > Why was being single ("free" in the Elf parallel) shameful, then? Good question--but it was. Being forced to be single in a society which regards marriage as the norm is a form of rejection and painful. However, a slave is already rejected, not considered part of the owner's family no matter how intimately connected emotionally or biologically, and becoming free is always a step toward acceptance. It isn't odd that Winky, isolated and terrified, would develop something like Stockholm or battered wife syndrome and identify with her captor. What is odd is that the Hogwarts Elves, who aren't isolated from their peers and are not abused or terrified, dread freedom nonetheless. Unlike human beings, they are emotionally and socially dependent on people who have, as far as we've seen, very little social or emotional contact with them. They seem to have the worst of both worlds. They're treated as outsiders, but react like insiders. Pippin From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sun Mar 31 21:24:55 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:24:55 -0000 Subject: Magic calorie-burning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37230 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "zoehooch" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > > do. :-) In the books, however, there are very few overweight > > wizards or witches. The only one I can think of off the top of my > > head is Neville. > > Mrs. Weasley isn't particularly thin. Nor is Professor Sprout. I expect differences in eating habits and metabolism would account for that, just as they do with Neville. Plus, Professor Sprout is a herbologist, and probably doesn't cast that many spells. Which raises the question of Snape, who apparently manages to maintain his svelte physique without indulging in a lot foolish wandwaving. I guess he a)is blessed with a good metabolism, the bastard; b) is ascetic in his eating habits; or c)does a killer step aerobics routine when no one's watching. > > As one who prefers not to fantastize too much when developing a > theory, I suspect that the wizard population probably has a similar > range of weight to the British population. Not fantasize too much? Where's the fun in that? Anyway, the wizard population probably does show a similar range of weight. However, the Muggle British population does get up to exercise once in a while. I've seen health clubs in London, and people jogging and stuff. Since the wizarding population doesn't seem to go in for that sort of thing (if you don't play Quidditch, you don't do sports at all), I would expect them to be more overweight on the average. Especially considering all the vast quantities of rich food that the Hogwarts house-elves dish out. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From brewpub44 at snet.net Sun Mar 31 21:44:54 2002 From: brewpub44 at snet.net (brewpub44) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:44:54 -0000 Subject: Wizards and Practicality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37231 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "abigail_draconi" wrote: > I am not sure if this particular subject has been brought up before, > but I recently ran into a nagging question as I was trying to write > the next chapter in a fanfic. I had wanted to express the idea of > magical space accommodation when compared to the overall practicality > of the wizarding world at large, when I hit a small bump. I have no > idea how practical or impractical the wizarding world in general is. > Does anyone have any idea about this? > > @---<-- Chyna Rose I'd love to take a stab at it, but your question is kind of vague. Can you try to restate it? A Barkeep in Diagon Alley From alina at distantplace.net Sun Mar 31 20:28:40 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:28:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hair and Beauty in the Wizarding World References: Message-ID: <009c01c1d8f2$a6003040$8b972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37232 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" wrote: > I was reading posts on Snape's oily hair and rembered something I > posted last month. If you hade magical powers, wouldn't you be as > beautiful as possible? Or in a world of Magic would the views of > beauty differ? > Remember Eloise Midgen (or whatever her lastname was) of Hufflepuff who tried to curse her pimples off and ended up cursing her nose off? And Prof. Sprout was talking about using the plants she had the class working on to make an acne-removing potion (balm, whatever)? I basically think it points out that in the Wizarding world they simply have magical equivalents of muggle beauty products. So they have bubotuber puss instead of Oxy or Noxema and teeth-shrinking mirrors instead of braces. Thus you can have clear skin and straight teeth and a charm to make your hair flash different colors but if there are spells that make a witch/wizard actually look different they are probably very high-level magic available for ministry workers who need to go undercover and such. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sun Mar 31 22:41:51 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:41:51 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius a "pureblood"? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7935728629.20020331144151@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37233 This is an interesting question about the nature of Sirius' family: What sort of family, Wizard or Muggle, would allow their son to go to prison without a trial?? -- Dave From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sun Mar 31 22:48:55 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:48:55 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Another werewolf question. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19236152814.20020331144855@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37234 Saturday, March 30, 2002, 3:40:49 PM, Liz Sager wrote: LS> I'm not an expert in astronomy, and don't claim to be, but when the moon LS> rises, there is only a small amount of time when the moon is *completely* LS> full. Sorry I can't explain it any better than that. :( Because the moon is always moving around the Earth, the moment when the moon is 100% full is an instantaneous event. That's why I speculate that the moon must be, say, 95% full for him to transform. And if at the moment the clouds parted, the moon was (technically) a 95.01% waning gibbous (i.e. he miscalculated how long he was still in danger), it in my mind makes his neglect to take his potion more acceptable. -- Dave, astronomy semi-expert From Mycheeseslice at aol.com Sun Mar 31 22:57:37 2002 From: Mycheeseslice at aol.com (Mycheeseslice at aol.com) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:57:37 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius a "pureblood"? Message-ID: <195.499295e.29d8ee61@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37235 Maybe his family is all dead and Rowling hasn't explored that yet. From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sun Mar 31 22:59:52 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:59:52 -0800 Subject: _Kids' Letters to Harry Potter from Around the World_ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7836809756.20020331145952@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 37236 This is the title of the book I'm currently reading. The letters are fun if at times a bit repetitive. However, I've already (I'm about 1/3 of the way through) read two major bits of insight from the kiddies: -- When they're trying to restrain Wormtail in the Shrieking Shack, why didn't Hermione (or someone) put the Full Body-Bind on him? Then he couldn't have escaped, even after Lupin transformed! -- Why didn't someone do a Priori Incantatum on Sirius' wand to find out whether he murdered those people or not? (I think the answer to this is that Crouch, Sr. wanted to create the impression that DE's were being aprehended... Justice was an optional extra.) -- Dave From catlady at wicca.net Sun Mar 31 23:22:07 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 23:22:07 -0000 Subject: sirius's family (was: Sirius a "pureblood"? In-Reply-To: <7935728629.20020331144151@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37237 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > This is an interesting question about the nature of Sirius' family: > What sort of family, Wizard or Muggle, would allow their son to go > to prison without a trial?? Maybe they also believed him guilty and were deeply ASHAMED of being related to him. From ritadarling at ivillage.com Sun Mar 31 23:24:12 2002 From: ritadarling at ivillage.com (ritadear2) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 23:24:12 -0000 Subject: Magic calorie-burning In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 37239 Marina wrote: "Now, just thinking about it logically, it seems to me that if you wave a wand, say a couple of words, and out pops a fireball (or a bunch of roses, or a French poodle) -- well, the energy has to come from somewhere, doesn't it? And the most obvious answer is that it comes from inside the wizard who's doing the spell. So I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume that calories are burned in the process." True, but I guess I was thinking more along the lines of general muscle mass. I imagine the kids at Hogwarts do get a bit of strength and stamina training while carrying heavy books through the corridors and up and down stairs (I imagine Hermione would be quite buff, lol), since they would not be allowed to put the "featherweight" spell on their stuff (but then make fun of muggles for carrying heavy stuff???). But, for the adult wizards and witches, if they depend upon spells to burn calories, do they have horrifically atrophied and flabby upper bodies? And, we need to add Crabbe and Goyle to the overweight list, don't we? Rita