[HPforGrownups] Scar musings/SUCCESS/Fourth Man/Bagman (is still evil)

[Edblanning at 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]